“Section 2(24)(x)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(24)(x)1,421 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 2(24)(x) is CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. (321 ITR 508), cited in 1,629 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 2(24)(x)

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. 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).

CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur

43 Taxmann.com 411 · 2014 · High Court

524

citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund, ESI, and other welfare funds, if deposited by the due date for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), are allowable as a deduction and cannot be disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) or Section 43B, even if deposited after the due date prescribed by the respective welfare Acts.

Judgments citing Section 2(24)(x)

Wahid Khan, Bhiwadi vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Alwar /DCIT CPC Bengaluru, Alwar/CPC Bengaluru

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 166/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(iv)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 234ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

held that the above amounts totaling to Rs. 14,88,536/- is forming part of the income of the assessee under section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act, 1961. Therefore, the AO added the same to the total income of the assessee ... account of late deposit of PF & ESI contribution of the employee’s by the assessee in the light of provision of Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act by holding it deemed income and subjected to tax in the hands of the employer which in first

New Rampgreen Technologies Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre NFAC., Delhi

In the result Ground No. 4 is also partially allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3216/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalnew Rampgreen Technologies Private Limited F-12, Shilpin Centre, Gd Ambedkar Marg, Wadala, Mumbai-400 031 Pan: Aadcv9341F ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, 7 (2) (4) Room No.807, Old Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil KishanlalSoiFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(2)Section 38Section 40A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1928/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2019-20

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

long periods. That Parliament intended to retain the separate character of these two amounts, is evident from the use of different language. Section 2(24)(x) too, deems amount received from the employees (whether the amount is received from the employee or by way of deduction authorized by the statute ... crucial. The former forms part of the employers' income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee

Atc Precision Components Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1804/DEL/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaatc Precision Components Vs. Dcit Pvt. Ltd., Cpc B-1/5,Janak Puri Bangalore Delhi-110 058 Pan No. Aafca 2867 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By -None- Revenue By Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.05.2023

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV

Satpal Singh Sandhu, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 4/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 04/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Satpal Singh Sandhu 151/2, Ward -1, Sandhu Bhavan, Guru Govind Singh Marg, Heerapur, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Cseps7315E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Anibrain Digital Technologies Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Dy Comm of Income Tax, CPC, Income Tax Dep., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assesses is partly allowed

ITA 198/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleanibrain Digital Technologies V. Dcit Private Limited Centralized Processing Centre B1, 4Th Floor, Cerebrum It Park Income-Tax Department Kalyani Nagar, Pune- 411014 Bangalore- Pan: Aafca6342K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Praveen Jain Department Represented By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 41Section 43B

long periods. That Parliament intended to retain the separate character of these two amounts, is evident from the use of different language. Section 2(24)(x) too, deems amount received from the employees (whether the amount is received from the employee or by way of deduction Page No. | 6 Anibrain ... crucial. The former forms part of the employers' income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of section 2(24)(x)- unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to section 36(1) (va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee

Anang Pal Jawla, Haryana vs. Circle 1, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 579/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2019-20 Anang Pal Jawla, Vs Ao, Advocate Vijay Kumar Gupta, Circle-1, Opp. Jain Mandir, Faridabad. Main Bazar, Faridabad, Haryana – 121 004. Pan: Aqapj1168Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Bhupendera Anant, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.579/Del/2022 For Ay 2019-20 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, In Short] In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1040963669(1) Dated 17.03.2022 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 07.07.2020 By The Ld. Acit, Cpc (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’). 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Since The Issue Is Already A Covered Issue, We Proceed To Dispose Of This Appeal On Hearing The Ld. Dr & Based On Materials Available On Record.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendera Anant, Sr. DR

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

crucial. The former forms part of the employers' income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee

Dhruv Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Kota vs. CIT(A), Udaipur-2, Udaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 86/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Ao Who Ignored The Same.

For Appellant: Shri B.A. Maheshwari, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl.CIT

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

case of employee’s contribution which were deducted from their income and was held in trust by assessee-employer as per section 2(24)(x), thus said clause would not absolve assessee employer from its liability to deposit employees contribution on or before due date as a condition for deduction ... from employees is not deposited in respective accounts within due date of the respective Acts is deemed income of the assessee as per Section 2(24(x). Therefore, claiming this amount as expenditure by the assessee is an incorrect claim as per law. The action of the Assessing Officer found

Bhanu Parkash Bansal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward2(3), Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 133/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: None (E written submission)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 5

received by the taxpayer/ employer from his employee. Therefore, for considering such question, application of Section 36(1)(va) red with Section 2(24)(x) alone in the proper course and other interpretation would only defect the object and scope of both the provisions ... crucial. The former forms part of the employers’ income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of Section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee

M/S Mantra Exports Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-CPC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 510/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2023AY 2018-2019

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(v)Section 438Section 43B

approach indicated in the ruling in Alom Extrusions. As noticed previously, Alom Extrutions did not consider the fact of the introduction of Section 2(24)(x) or in fact the other provisions of the Act. 52. When Parliament introduced Section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer ... Rajasthan High Court). 32 Parliament intended to retain the separate character of these two amounts, is evident from the use of different language. Section 2(24)(x) too, deems amount received from the employees (whether the amount is received from the employee or by way of deduction authorized

M/S. Centrum Microcredit Limited, Mumbai vs. ADIT Centralized Processsing Center, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1602/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Centrum Microcredit Ltd., Asstt. Director Of Income Tax, 801, Centrum House, Cpc, Bengaluru-560500. Vs. Vidyanangari, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400098. Pan No. Aafcn 3506 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ravikant S. Pathak Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Dr : Date Of Hearing 28/04/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Ravikant S. PathakFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR

Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

State Insurance Insurance Corporation (SIC) aggregating to Rs.55,845/ Corporation (SIC) aggregating to Rs.55,845/- under section under section 36(1)(va) r.w. section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ) r.w. section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ) r.w. section 2(24)(x

Kamal Dixit, Haryana vs. AO Ward-2, Sonepat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 846/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2018-19 Kamal Dixit, Vs Ao, 240, Vpo-Bhainsra Wali, Ward-2, Ballabgarh, Sonepat. Faridabad, Haryana – 121 004. Pan: Astpd3725G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.846/Del/2022 For Ay 2018-19 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, In Short] In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1035026042(1) Dated 23.08.2021 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 23.03.2020 By The Ld. Acit, Cpc (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’). 2. At The Outset, We Find That The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Before Us Is Delayed By 189 Days. In View Of The Relaxation Provided By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Light Of Covid 19 Pandemic, We Deem It Fit To Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

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

M/S Ready Roti India Pvt. Ltd., F-28, Riico Industrial Area, Sare Khurd, Alwar vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 94/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. RuniPal, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we have carefully examined the above statutory provisions of the Act including the definition of sections 2(24)(x) and s. 36(1)(va) and 43B(b), which read thus : "2.(24) 'income' includes,— . . . 4 M/S. READY ROTI INDIA PVT LTD. VS ACIT ... crucial. The former forms part of the employers’ income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of Section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee

Ravi Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 7, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 72/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Itr. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts Of Confirming The Addition Of Rs.22,995/- Being Double Addition Of Speculative Income.’’

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Bhargava, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl.CIT

Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36(1)(va)

crucial. The former forms part of the employers’ income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of Section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee ... separately dealt with in different clauses of Section 36 (1). All these establish that Parliament, while introducing Section 36(1)(va) along with Section 2(24)(x), was aware of the distinction between the two types of contributions. There was a statutory classification under the IT Act, between

A September Home Lifestyle Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 40/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Due Date Of Deposit As Mentioned In Relevant Act Despite The Fact That The Amount Was Deposited In The Relevant Fund Before Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Return Under Income Tax Act, 1961.’’

For Appellant: Shri Mudit Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena, Addl. CIT-DR

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

Swastic Oil Industries, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle -7, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 35/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 34 & 35/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s. Swastic Oil Industries F-5-F8, Industrial Area Newai, Tonk 304 021 cuke Vs. The ACIT Circle-7 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJFS 8180 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Devang Gargieya, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT lquokbZ

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

Swastic Oil Industires, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle -7, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 34/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 May 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

Dynasty Modular Furnitures Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 99/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

account of employees contribution to ESI and PF by invoking the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24(x) of the Act was correct or not. (ii) The claim of the appellant as per the written submission that the disallowance was not indicated in the Audit ... should be allowed as the amount is paid before filing of return of income. However, under the provisions of Section 2(24)(x) of the Act, the contributions from employees are deemed income and subject to tax in the hands of the employer and the employer will not get deduction

M/S Jasani India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 546/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailm/S Jasani India Private Vs. National E-Assessment Limited, Hw 6010, Tower Centre-Delhi, H,6Th Floor, Bharat Delhi Diamond Bourse, Bkc, Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0081C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sanket Shah Respondent By : Vranda U Matkari Date Of Hearing 27.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi Dated 10.02.2023 For A.Y. 2020-21. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. In Not Holding That The Entire Processing Was Done Without Following The Method Prescribed U/S 143(1) & That The Adjustments Made Were Beyond The Scope Of That Section. 2. In Asking The Ao To Verify Whether Or Not Rs.9,008 Of Penalty Was Compensatory In Nature - Whereas It Was Already Pleaded That This Had Been Offered To Tax. 3. In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.516,812 Being Contribution To Pf By Merely Stating That The Judgment Of The Supreme Court In Checkmate Securities P Ltd Applied To The Case-Without Appreciating The Submissions That There Was No Delay In The Making Of These Contributions.”

For Appellant: Sanket ShahFor Respondent: Vranda U Matkari

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

P a g e | 1 M/s Jasani india Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NFAC IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH

Newage Fire Protection Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals. National Faceless Appeal, Mumbai

ITA 487/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Rs.3,38,093/- for A.Y. 2018-19 & 2019-20 respectively on account of disallowance under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act on account of delay in depositing employees’ contribution towards Provident Fund (PF), Employee’s State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) and superannuation fund ... account of PF, ESIC contribution & superannuation fund etc. after due date prescribed under the Act under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act but certainly before the due date of filing the return. 6. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee company challenging the impugned