← All Phrases

“Section 36(1)(iv)”

Section References (mined)Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)513 judgments

CISCO SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1234/BANG/2025[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 37(1)

provident fund and gratuity fund were enclosed as Annexures 4 and 5 respectively. Page 5 of 19 9.5 The assessee then referred to Sections 36(1)(iv), 36(1)(v), and 43B of the Act. It was submitted that contributions made to recognized provident and approved gratuity funds are allowable

KOTA TRUCKS P.LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2050/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Kota Trucks P. Ltd. Vs. Acit Bg-223, Sanjay Gandhi Circle -14(2) Transport Nagar, Gt New Delhi Karnal Road, New Delhi- 110042 Pan No.Aadck3550H Appellant Respondent Appellant Sh. Pratap Gupta, Ca (Virtual) Respondent Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr

Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

making the following observation: - “62. The distinction between an employer’s contribution which is its primary liability under law - in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part

JCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1561/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar / Ms SukanyaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 153CSection 250Section 43BSection 80I

gains from business. The issue arising for consideration, is whether the aforesaid condition imposed by CIT is valid. On a reading of Section 36(1)(iv) of the Act, it appears that any sum paid by the assessee as an employer by way contribution towards recognized provident fund ... paid by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution towards an approved gratuity fund has to be allowed as deduction. Unlike Section 36(1)(iv) Section 36(1)(v) is not subject to any condition. 39. According of approval for recognized provident fund and gratuity fund are provided

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1056/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2011-12
Section 153CSection 250Section 43BSection 80I

gains from business. The issue\narising for consideration, is whether the aforesaid condition imposed by CIT is\nvalid. On a reading of Section 36(1)(iv) of the Act, it appears that any sum paid\nby the assessee as an employer by way contribution towards recognized\nprovident fund ... paid by\nthe assessee as an employer by way of contribution towards an approved\ngratuity fund has to be allowed as deduction. Unlike Section 36(1)(iv) Section\n36(1)(v) is not subject to any condition.\n39. According of approval for recognized provident fund and gratuity fund are\nprovided

SUNIL KUMAR,ALWAR RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WARD 3, REWARI

In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s)

ITA 7634/DEL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 7634/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2019-20 Sunil Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Hill View Apartment, K-001, Ward-3, Neemrana, Behror, Alwar, Rewari, Rajasthan-301707 Haryana-123401 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ccmpk7200C Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2019-20 Arises Against The Addl./Jcit(A), Panaji’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1081206915(1) Dated 26.09.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(1) R.W.S. 264 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 246ASection 260ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

making the following observation:- "62. The distinction between an employer's contribution which is its primary liability under law - in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part

POONAM SABHARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-28(5), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1183/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

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

making the following observation: - "62. The distinction between an employer's contribution which is its primary liability under law - in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part

POONAM SABHARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-28(5), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1182/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

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

making the following observation: - "62. The distinction between an employer's contribution which is its primary liability under law - in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part

MANMEGH SINGH KANWAR,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ITO,WARD-73(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 3063/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Manmegh Singh Kanwar Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income Tax, 4R, 503, Gurjinder Vihar, Cpc Awho Township Greater Bangalore Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida U.P. Pan No.Avqps3897N Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ms. Priyanka Jindal, Advocate Revenue By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2025

Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

making the following observation :- “62. The distinction between an employer’s contribution which is its primary liability under law – in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part

DEEPAK POPTANI,AGRA vs. J.A.O CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AGRA

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

ITA 42/AGR/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 254(2)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 43B

Form No. 3CD. The entire amount was also timely deposited on 18.07.2018 before the due date of filing return in view of section 36(1)(iv) read with section 43B of the Act. However, this amount was inclusive of employer’s contribution towards

SRI LAKSHMI ROAD TRANSPORT COMPANY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1209/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1209/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Sri Lakshmi Road Vs. Dy. Cit Transport Company Circle 6(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aatfs6596A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

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 by the employer (Section 36(1)(va)) was maintained — and continues to be maintained

ACIT-6(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA REAL ESTATE LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOWNS AS CENTURY TEXTILES AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED), MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4359/MUM/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri yogesh Thar & Shri VinayakFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-
Section 250Section 32(1)(i)

section 36(1)(va) was already made, though inadvertently classified in Aditya Birla Real Estate Ltd. the return as-INR 649 under section 36(1)(iv) and INR. 26,096 under "contribution to any other fund" 3. The Hon'ble CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that

ADITYA BIRLA REAL ESTATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CENTURY TEXTILES AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2979/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri yogesh Thar & Shri VinayakFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-
Section 250Section 32(1)(i)

section 36(1)(va) was already made, though inadvertently classified in Aditya Birla Real Estate Ltd. the return as-INR 649 under section 36(1)(iv) and INR. 26,096 under "contribution to any other fund" 3. The Hon'ble CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

ITA 684/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel
Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)

income has claimed the entire amount as a deduction on the ground that the payment is allowable as per the provisions of section 36(1)(iv)/(v) r.w.s. 43B of the Act. From the perusal of the CIT(A)'s finding as extracted in the earlier part of the order ... Division Bench while dismissing the appeal had made an observation that even if the expenditure as claimed is not allowable under section 36(1)(iv) of the Act, the same is allowable under section 37 of the Act. However, on this aspect there are other decisions

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

ITA 661/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel
Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)

income has claimed the entire amount as a deduction on the ground that the payment is allowable as per the provisions of section 36(1)(iv)/(v) r.w.s. 43B of the Act. From the perusal of the CIT(A)'s finding as extracted in the earlier part of the order ... Division Bench while dismissing the appeal had made an observation that even if the expenditure as claimed is not allowable under section 36(1)(iv) of the Act, the same is allowable under section 37 of the Act. However, on this aspect there are other decisions

RANAR AGROCHEM LIMITED,PARAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 288/VIZ/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.288/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15) Ranar Agrochem Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaccp0372M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M. Madhusudan, Ca (Hybrid) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sri Jenardhanan V, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 31/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 15/05/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “A.O.”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) Dated 30/12/2016 For A.Y.

For Appellant: Shri M. Madhusudan, CAFor Respondent: Sri Jenardhanan V, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, िवशाखापटणम पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Visakhapatnam Bench, Visakhapatnam Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant Member

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 545/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 544/PUN/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 543/PUN/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1155/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1154/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA

Showing 1–20 of 513 · Page 1 of 26

...