“Section 36(1)(va)”

Bangalore Dor Tech Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

could have been treated only as receipts not amounting to income. When Parliament introduced the amendments in 1988-89, inserting Section 36(1)(va) and simultaneously inserting the second proviso of Section 43B, its intention was not to treat the disparate nature of the amounts, similarly. As discussed previously ... prescribed time – by way of contribution of the employees’ share to their credit with the relevant fund is to be treated as deduction (Section 36(1)(va)). The other important feature is that this distinction between the employers’ contribution (Section 36(1)(iv)) and employees’ contribution required to be deposited

Sri Rajanikanth Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

learned CIT[A] / NFAC is not justified in holding that the amendment made by insertion of Explanation 2 to the provisions of section 36[1][va] of the Act and the insertion of Explanation 5 to section 43B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01/04/2021 ... case of CIT Vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd., reported in 304 ITR 308 (SC), the CIT(A) concluded that amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021, is clarificatory and has got retrospective operation. 4 Sri Rajanikanth Reddy. 5. Aggrieved, assessee

Muthyala Suryababu, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

respective Acts. The CIT(A) also relied on the Page 3 of 8 ITA Nos. 770 & 771/Bang/2022 amendment brought about to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4.1 The Ld.AR submitted that an identical issue ... 1312/Del/2020 by order dated 26/08/2021 has considered similar issue and has held as under: “12. The language of newly proposed explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and explanation 5 to section 43B makes it clear that the amendment is retrospective.” 5.2 He submitted that the amendment brought

Muthyala Suryababu, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

respective Acts. The CIT(A) also relied on the Page 3 of 8 ITA Nos. 770 & 771/Bang/2022 amendment brought about to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4.1 The Ld.AR submitted that an identical issue ... 1312/Del/2020 by order dated 26/08/2021 has considered similar issue and has held as under: “12. The language of newly proposed explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and explanation 5 to section 43B makes it clear that the amendment is retrospective.” 5.2 He submitted that the amendment brought

M/S. Optimal Strategix Consulting Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. It was further held by the ITAT that amendment by Finance Act, 2021, to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act is not clarificatory. The relevant finding of the ITAT in the case of M/s. Shakuntala Agarbathi Company ... assessee and against the respondent-revenue. There shall be no order as to costs." 7.2 The further question is whether the amendment to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and declaratory in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent

Bharat Silks, Bangalore vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

mentioned in the respective Acts but before the due date of filing return of income by relying on newly inserted Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to section 43B by Finance Act 2021. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that ... Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to Section 43B of the Act was inserted by Finance act 2021 and the explanatory memorandum to the Finance Act, 2021 proposing amendment in section 36(1)(va) as well as section 43B is applicable only prospectively from

M/S. Daxer Trading Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21

addition made by the CPC. 4 For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B of the Act brought by Finance Act, 2021 by inserting explanation 2 & explanation 5 respectively is retrospective in nature without considering ... date prescribed in the corresponding statutes; respectively. We notice in this factual backdrop that the legislature has not only incorporated necessary amendment in Sections 36(1)(va) as well as 43B vide Finance Act, 2021 to this effect but also the CBDT has Page 4 of 6 issued Memorandum

Sasanur Hospital, Vijaypur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee as well as the appeal of revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU