“Section 36(1)(va)”

Section References (mined)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)2,467 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 36(1)(va) is CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. (321 ITR 508), cited in 1,629 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 36(1)(va)

CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.

321 ITR 508 · 2010 · High Court

1,629

citing judgments

Employee contributions to PF and ESIC, deposited beyond the due date under the respective Acts but within the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1), are allowable deductions under Section 36(1)(va). Such disallowance cannot be made during processing under Section 143(1).

Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

143 Taxmann.com 178 · 2022 · Supreme Court

1,392

citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI deposited by an employer beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective special Acts are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such disallowance can be made during processing under section 143(1).

CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd.

319 ITR 306 · 2009 · Supreme Court

1,344

citing judgments

A proviso inserted into a section to remedy unintended consequences, make the section workable, or supply an obvious omission must be read retrospectively in operation to give effect to the section as a whole.

CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation

366 ITR 170 · 2014 · High Court

1,158

citing judgments

Employees' contributions to welfare funds, such as provident fund, are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) if deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the respective welfare statutes, even by a single day. Such delayed deposits are not cured even if made before the income-tax return filing due date.

279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises

298 ITR 141 · 2008 · High Court

706

citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund or ESI, even if deposited after the due date specified in the respective welfare statutes, are allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) if paid before the due date for filing the income-tax return. This judgment aligns the treatment of employee contributions with employer contributions under Section 43B.

(i) CIT v. Merchem Ltd.

378 ITR 443 · 2015 · High Court

631

citing judgments

Belated remittance of employees' contribution to ESI and PF, even if deposited before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), is not allowed as a deduction. This disallowance falls under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x), as Section 43B applies only to employer's contributions.

CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd.

368 ITR 749 · 2014 · High Court

609

citing judgments

Deduction for employees' contributions to PF and ESIC is allowable under Section 43B if paid before the due date for filing the return under Section 139(1); similarly, delayed deposits of employers' contributions to ESIC and PF are also allowable.

CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn

41 Taxmann.com 100 · 2014 · High Court

540

citing judgments

Employees' contributions to provident fund or other welfare funds are deductible under section 36(1)(va) only if paid by the due date specified in the respective welfare fund enactments, and section 43B does not extend this period to the income tax return filing due date under section 139(1).

Judgments citing Section 36(1)(va)

Late Mr.Seshadri Naidu Dharmaraj Rep by Legal Heir - Mr.Shankar Ganesh, Chennai vs. CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 661/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singhand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

DCIT (100 Taxmann.com 244; 23.10.2018), the single judge bench of Hon’ble Court has held that the scope of Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are different and thus, there is no question of reading both provisions together to consider as to whether assessee- employer is entitled to deduction ... respect of sum belatedly paid towards employee contribution and therefore, for considering such question, application of section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) alone is proper course. It was further held that though an amendment has been introduced to Section 43B, whereby actual date of payment

Late Mr.Seshadri Naidu Dharmaraj Rep by Legal Heir - Mr.Shankar Ganesh, Chennai vs. CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 660/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singhand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S Maxima Automation Solutions Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp Circle 4 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 649/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.649/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Maxima Automation Solutions Pvt. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., Represented By Its Managing Income Tax, Director, No. 2/87, Raghaava Nagar, Corporate Circle 4(1), 7Th Street, Moovarasampet, Chennai Madipakkam, Chennai 600 091. [Pan:Aagcm1970L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. James Victor Rajkumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 25.05.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By Eight Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed A 2

For Appellant: Shri P. James Victor RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

were as under :- "(a) Whether amounts paid on account of PF/ESI after due date are allowable in view of Section 43B, read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act? (b) Whether the deletion of the 2nd proviso to Section 43B by way of amendment by the Finance ... r.w.s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act 6.3 Now, the question arises, whether by the Finance Act, 2021, the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) by inserting the Explanation 2 r.w.s. 43B of the Act have been amended, whereby it is clarified that the provisions of Section

M/S Athenahealth Technology Private Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 82/CHNY/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.82/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Athenahealth Technology The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Module 3 & 4, 9Th Floor Vs. Corporate Circle-1(1), S.P Infocity, Dr. Mgr Road, Chennai. Kandaanchanvadi, Perungudi, Chennai – 600 096. [Pan: Aafca-3257-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Sumeet Khurana, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 40ASection 40A(7)(a)Section 40A(7)(b)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य

Arnold Consulting Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 712/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Akshaya K.S., A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

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

Zynga Game Network India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 693/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.M/S. Zynga Game Network Vs Dcit, Circle -7(1)(1) India Pvt. Ltd. Bmtc Building, 80 Feet Road No. 19, Prestige Falcon Tower Koramangala 4Th & 5Th Floor, Brunton Bengaluru 560095 Road, Richmond Town Bengaluru 560025 Pan – Aaacz3937G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ankur Pai, Advocate Revenue By: Shri K.R. Narayan, Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi In Appeal No. Nfac/2019-20/10054666 Dated 16.06.2022 For Ay 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Learned Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Cpc / Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) ["Cit(A)"] Has Erred In Disallowing The Delayed Remittance Of The Employees Contribution To Pf Without Appreciating That The Appellant Had Remitted The Same Before The Due Date For Filing Of Return Of Income Under Section 139(1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayan, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

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. ShakuntalaAgarbathi Company Vs. DCIT ... 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

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

ITA 577/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Rajanikanth Reddy Vs The Income Tax Officer- 4(2)(2) No.21, 14Th Main, Venkateshwara Bengaluru Layout, Madiwala Bengaluru 560068 Pan – Ablpr5981K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate Revenue By: Shri K.R. Narayan, Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi In Appeal No. Cit(A)/Bengaluru-4/10069/2020-21 Dated 25.05.2022 For Ay 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Order Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Appeals] / National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac For Short] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Determination Of Total Income Of Appellant In The Order U/S. 154 Of The Act, At Rs. 1,92,26,970/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs. 1,09,63,817/-, Under The Normal Provisions, On Account Of The Disallowance Of Rs. 82,63,148/- Made U/S.36[1][Va] Of The Act, Based Upon The Details In The Tax Audit

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayan, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 36Section 43BSection 44A

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 ... Employee's Contribution of PF and ESI were paid by the appellant after the "due date" as per the explanation below section 36((1)(va) of the IT Act,1961, the same was added back to the total income of the appellant in the light of provision of Section

Sri Family Biznet Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 590/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

jurisdictional Tribunal and High Court. 5. The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that these legislative amendments incorporated in section 36(1)(va) and 43B by Finance Act, 2021, are prospective in application w.e.f. April 1, 2021. 6. Such other grounds as may be urged ... date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. It was further held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and has got retrospective operation. 5. Aggrieved, assessee has filed this appeal before

Della Adventure and Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1708/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 Della Adventure & Resorts Pvt. National Faceless Appeal Ltd., Centre (Nfac), Delhi, 401, Della Tower, 795 Parsi Vs. Colony, Jam-E-Jamshed Road, Mumbai-400014. Pan No. Aadcd 2549 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Hitesh P. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. T. Shankar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/09/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Hitesh P. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR

Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

income and hence allowable u/s. 43B of the I.T. the return of income and hence allowable u/s. 43B of the I.T. Act, 1961. Section 36(1)(va) of the Act do not apply to Act, 1961. Section 36(1)(va) of the Act do no Act, 1961. Section 36(1 ... income an income and hence allowable u/s. 43B of the I.T. Act, 1961. d hence allowable u/s. 43B of the I.T. Act, 1961. Section 36(1)(va) of the Act do not apply to Provident fund Section 36(1)(va) of the Act do not apply to Provident fund Section

Della Adventure and Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1707/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Mr. Hitesh P. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR

Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Span Intermediates Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, Ground No.3 of the assessee is allowed subject to submission of certified documents mentioned above

ITA 1917/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalspan Intermediates Pvt. Ltd. 6Th Floor, Jash Chambers, Mustafa Building, Sir Phiroz Shah Mehta Road, Mumbai-400001. Pan: Aabcs6103Q ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3)(1) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Sanjiv M. Shah Respondent By : Sh. Pramod Nikalje Date Of Hearing : 16/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Nfac’] Dated 26.08.2021 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjiv M. ShahFor Respondent: Sh. Pramod Nikalje

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 244ASection 250Section 28Section 36(1)(iv)Section 438Section 43B

while dealing with this issue simply cut-paste the order relevant to allowability of contribution with reference to section 36(1)(va) and 43B read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. Consequently, he totally ignored the contents of the assessment order, issue involved, submissions of the assessee

DCIT 2(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Nisa Induatrial Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1475/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1475/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Nisa Industrial Dcit-2(3)(1) Services Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 552, Aayakar Bhavan, बिधम/ 509, Magnum Tower, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Lokhandwala Complex, Vs. Cross Road No. 2, Andheri West, Mumbai- 400 058 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacn1283H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : None सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 08.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 31.03.2022, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, In Relation To Adjustment Made U/S 143(1) For The Ay 2019-20. 2

For Appellant: Dr. Mahesh AkhadeFor Respondent: None

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 80

36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24(x) of the Act. NFAC has held that amendment brought by Finance Act 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 to section 36(1)(va) by brining explanation 5 to section 43B and amendment in Clause 36(1)(va) held it to be retrospective. 4. It is admitted ... reported to be „due date‟ in column 20 (b) in respect of contributions received from employees for various funds as referred to in Section 36(1)(va) and the fact that the expression „due date‟ has been defined under Explanation (now 15 I.T.A. No. 1475/Mum/2022 M/s Nisa Industrial Services

Private Eye Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 681/BANG/2022[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B.R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Shankar Prasad K., Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESEIDENT AND SHRI PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

Mr. G R Chandrashekar Naidu, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 677/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Gala Ranga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.R.Narayanan, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

filing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act for A.Y. 2020- 21 and therefore, deduction was allowable under section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act as applicable for the relevant assessment year. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances ... case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in relying on the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B of the Act, without appreciating that the same were prospective in nature being effective from 1 April, 2021 and accordingly, applicable

Maharashtra Steels Rolling Mills P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-35, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5058/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Parida/Ms. KiranFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)

Section 14A

deduction. Following the binding precedent (supra), we are of the considered view that since the amended provisions contained under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act are not applicable for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2011-12 as the amendment will be effective from

M/S. Mittal Clothing Company, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 673/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-29

For Appellant: Shri Rajgopal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K Sankar Ganesh, JCIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

1) of the Act towards belated remittance of Employees share of Employees' State Insurance(ESI), Provident Fund(PF) and other welfare funds under section 36(1)(va), from the Form 3CD filed along with ITR, though clause no. 20.b of such Form 3CD itself reports that such payment ... 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 issued Memorandum of Explanation that the same applies

Kya Apparel LLP, Mumbai vs. Dy. Comm of Income Tax, CPC, Bengluru

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

ITA 1732/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalekya Apparel Llp Vs. Dcit, Cpc H. No. 434/6, Gala 6 To P.O.Box.1,Electronic 11, Bldg-A-7, Harihar City, Corporation, Dapode Bangalore.560100. Road, Mumbai – 421302 Pan/Gir No. : Aamfk3840Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Pooja Harjajani.Ar Respondent By : Mr.R.P. Veena.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 143(1) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Ms.Pooja Harjajani.ARFor Respondent: Mr.R.P. Veena.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

erred in facts and law in not appreciating the fact that amendment made by Finance Act, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act are prospective in nature. (d) The claim of the employees' contribution to Provident Fund ought to be allowed by following the decision ... reported to be ‘due date’ in column 20 (b) in respect of contributions received from employees for various funds as referred to in Section 36(1)(va) and the fact that the expression ‘due date’ has been defined under Explanation (now Explanation 1) to Section 36(1)(va) provides that

Ashida Electronics Pvt Ltd, Thane vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2050/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalashida Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. A-308, Ashida House, Road No.21, Wagle Estate, Thane (West)-400604. Pan: Aabca5020G ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Centralized Processing Center, Income Tax Department, Bengaluru-560500 ..... Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Utkarsha Bhanap Respondent By : Sh. Mehul Jain Date Of Hearing : 02/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Ms. Utkarsha BhanapFor Respondent: Sh. Mehul Jain

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)

jurisdictional High court is a mistake. 9. Further both the lower authorities relied upon the amendment made by Finance Act, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) and 43B. As per Ld. CIT(A) this amendment is curative in nature and retrospective in application. 10. On this issue jurisdictional ITAT

Allwyn Joseph Sequeira, Mumbai vs. CPC Income Tax Dept., Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in above terms

ITA 2049/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT(A), NFAC) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 15,88,383/- under section 36(1)(va) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 1.1. Under the facts and in law CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming the addition ... Bombay). 1.4. Under the facts and in law, CIT(A), NFAC erred in stating that the amendment brought by Finance Act. 2021 in section 36(1)(va) of the Act and section 438 of the Act are retrospective in nature as these provisions create liability for the appellant and therefore

Jasbir Singh Kaberwal, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengluru

In the result, this appeal is allowed

ITA 1788/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

delayed payment in column 20(b) were delayed payments of contributions received from the employees for various funds, as referred to in Section 36(1)(va) vis-à-vis the respective statute, but not vis-à-vis the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The judicial precedents in support ... jurisdictional High Courts. Such conduct, according to the learned counsel, is impermissible. Finally, his next plea is that the insertion of Explanations to Section 36(1)(va) and 43B, by the Finance Bill 2021, is prospective in nature, and, accordingly, so far as the period prior to 1st April