← All Phrases

“Section 2(24)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(24)1,946 judgments

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

Leading authorities on Section 2(24)

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. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd.
306 ITR 392 · 2008 · Supreme Court
577
citing judgments

The "Purpose Test" determines whether an incentive or subsidy is a capital or revenue receipt for income tax purposes. If the incentive's purpose is to enable an assessee to set up a new industry or make investments in capital assets, it is a capital receipt and not taxable.

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 2(24)

M/S. Sycone Cpmc Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 260/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year:2018-19 M/S. Sycone Cpmc Private Limited, No.36, 20Th Main, 2Nd Block, Rajajinagar, Dcit, Cpc, Vs. Bengaluru – 560 010. Bengaluru. Pan No : Aaics 3458 H Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, Ca Respondent By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 31.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2022 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 25/02/2022 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-11, Bangalore & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Solitary Issue Urged In This Appeal Relates To Disallowance Of Rs.8,58,090/-, Being Employees Contribution To Provident Fund & Esi, Made U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short].

For Appellant: Shri. Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

under the provisions of the PF Act and the PF Scheme, that would have to be treated as income within the meaning of Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act and in which case, the assessee is liable to pay tax on the said amount treating that

Haldiram Foods International Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst., Director, CPC, Bengaluru

ITA 2059/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Haldiram Foods Asst. Director, Cpc International Pvt. Ltd., Centralised Processing A-204, Shyamkamal, Vs. Center, Agarwal Market, Income Tax Department, Mumbai – 400 0547 Bengaluru- 560500 Pan: Aaach3628L Karnataka (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Hitesh P. Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Chintamani V. Dingankar, D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh P. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chintamani V. Dingankar, D.R
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

ESIC if made before the due date of filing of return of income, the same is allowable deduction as per provisions of Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act. 11. In view of what has been discussed above, we are of the considered view

Equipment Fabricators, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru

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

ITA 329/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Equipment Fabricators Asst. Director Of Income 136, Khajisonehalli Tax (Cpc) Kanamangala Post Post Box No. 1, Vs. Whitefiled-Hosakote Road Electronic City Post Office Bangalore 560067 Bengaluru 560010 Pan No : Aaafe4613P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri B.S. Balachandran, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2022 O R D E R Perb.R. Baskaran: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 30/07/2021Passed By Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Solitary Issue Urged In This Appeal Relates To Disallowance Of Rs.13,85,202/- , Being Employees Contribution To Provident Fund& Esi, Made U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short].

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

under the provisions of the PF Act and the PF Scheme, that would have to be treated as income within the meaning of Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act and in which case, the assessee is liable to pay tax on the said amount treating that

Ashwath Reddy Nagabhushan Reddy, Bangalore vs. Jurisdictional AO, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 134/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

under the provisions of the PF Act and the PF Scheme, that would have to be treated as income within the meaning of Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act and in which case, the assessee is liable to pay tax on the said amount treating that

Sharan Fashions, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5(2)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 133/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra Nayak, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

under the provisions of the PF Act and the PF Scheme, that would have to be treated as income within the meaning of Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act and in which case, the assessee is liable to pay tax on the said amount treating that

Wave Mechanics Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 689/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Wave Mechanics Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle – 7(1)92) V-3, 1 Main, I Phase Bengaluru Peenya Industrial Area Vs. Bengaluru 560058 Pan No : Aaacw3621J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Smt. Rashmi R., Advocate Respondent By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2022 O R D E R Perb.R. Baskaran: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 11/10/2021Passed By Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Solitary Issue Urged In This Appeal Relates To Disallowance Of Rs.16,21,394/- , Being Employees Contribution To Provident Fund& Esi, Made U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short].

For Appellant: Shri. Smt. Rashmi R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

under the provisions of the PF Act and the PF Scheme, that would have to be treated as income within the meaning of Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act and in which case, the assessee is liable to pay tax on the said amount treating that

M/S. Trianz Holdings Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, ground 34 is allowed

ITA 233/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.233/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Trianz Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Vs. No.165/2, 6Th Floor, Kalyani Magnum, Circle – 7(1)(1), Doraisani Palya, Iim Post, Bengaluru. Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru-560 076. Pan : Aafca 8051 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

been made because of the statutory provisions - Section 43B in the case of the employer's contribution and Section 36(v) read with Section 2(24)(x) in the case of the employee's contribution which has been deemed to be the income of the assessee. The plain consequence

K P R Cars Private Limited, Mysore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 91/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K P R Cars Private Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of No. 162, New Bannimantap Income Tax Extn., Mandi Mohalla Vs. Centralised Processing Mysore 570021 Centre Pan No : Aaeck3438R Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Hemant Pai, Ca Respondent By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 26.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26 .05.2022 O R D E R Perb.R. Baskaran: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 12/11/2021Passed By Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Solitary Issue Urged In This Appeal Relates To Disallowance Of Employees Contribution To Provident Fund& Esi Of Rs.21,63,054/- Made Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short] In Ay 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2018-19 On 28.03.2019. The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act, Wherein The Disallowance Of Rs. 21,63,054/- Was Made U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act On The Ground That The Employees Contribution M/S. Kpr Cars Private. Ltd. Page 2 To Pf & Esi Has Been Paid By The Assessee Beyond The Due Date Prescribed In The Respective Acts.

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

under the provisions of the PF Act and the PF Scheme, that would have to be treated as income within the meaning of Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act and in which case, the assessee is liable to pay tax on the said amount treating that

M/S. Surya Enterprise, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 310/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Surya Enterprise Assistant Director Of No. 50, Residency Road Income Tax Bangalore 560025 Vs. Central Processing Unit Pan No : Bangalore Aavfs2416H Appellant Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 26.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.05.2022 O R D E R Perb.R. Baskaran: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 03/12/2021Passed By Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Solitary Issue Urged In This Appeal Relates To Disallowance Of Employees Contribution To Provident Fund & Esi Of Rs.1,56,385/- Made U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

under the provisions of the PF Act and the PF Scheme, that would have to be treated as income within the meaning of Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act and in which case, the assessee is liable to pay tax on the said amount treating that

Gayathri Papanna, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralised Processing Centre, Bangalore

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

ITA 280/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessmentyear:2019-20 Gayathri Papanna Deputy Commissioner Of #67 4Th Cross, 2Nd Main Income Tax Hosahalli Centralised Processing Centre Vs. Vijayanagar Bangalore Bengaluru 560040 Pan No : Brypp3124J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. R.E. Balasubramaniam, Ca Respondent By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.05.2022 O R D E R Perb.R. Baskaran: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 03/12/2021Passed By Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Solitary Issue Urged In This Appeal Relates To Disallowance Of Rs.11,20,008/- , Being Employees Contribution To Provident Fund& Esi, Made Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short] In Ay 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20 On 13.10.2019. The Return Of Income Wasprocessed U/S 143(1) Of The Ac, Wherein The Disallowance Of Rs.11,20,008/- Was Made U/S Gayathri Papanna Page 2 36(1)(Va) Of The Act On The Ground That The Employees Contribution To Pf & Esi Has Been Paid By The Assessee Beyond The Due Date Prescribed In The Respective Acts.

For Appellant: Shri. R.E. Balasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

under the provisions of the PF Act and the PF Scheme, that would have to be treated as income within the meaning of Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act and in which case, the assessee is liable to pay tax on the said amount treating that

N. Narasimha Murthy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 237/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Smt Sumangala Ranga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

under the provisions of the PF Act and the PF Scheme, that would have to be treated as income within the meaning of Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act and in which case, the assessee is liable to pay tax on the said amount treating that

N. Narasimha Murthy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 236/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Smt Sumangala Ranga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

under the provisions of the PF Act and the PF Scheme, that would have to be treated as income within the meaning of Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act and in which case, the assessee is liable to pay tax on the said amount treating that

M/S. Sun Manufacturing Solutions, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 712/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Sun Manufacturing Solutions The Income Tax Officer Sy. No. 151, 11Th Main Road Ward – 6(2)(1) Peenya Indl. Area, 3Rd Phase Bengaluru Vs. Laggere Village Bengaluru 560058 Pan No : Abyfs6836P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Miss Sunaiana Bhatia, Ca Respondent By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.05.2022 O R D E R Perb.R. Baskaran: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 30/09/2021Passed By Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Solitary Issue Urged In This Appeal Relates To Disallowance Of Rs.3,75,531/-, Being Employees Contribution To Provident Fund& Esi, Made Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short] In Ay 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2018-19 On 28.03.2019. The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act, Wherein The Disallowance Of Rs.7,65,472/- Was Made U/S M/S. Sun Manufacturing Solutions Page 2 36(1)(Va) Of The Act On The Ground That The Employees Contribution To Pf & Esi Has Been Paid By The Assessee Beyond The Due Date Prescribed In The Respective Acts. The Assessee Filed A Rectification Petition Objecting To The Disallowance Made & In The Rectification Order, The Addition Was Sustained To The Extent Of Rs.3,75,531/-.

For Appellant: Miss Sunaiana Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

under the provisions of the PF Act and the PF Scheme, that would have to be treated as income within the meaning of Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act and in which case, the assessee is liable to pay tax on the said amount treating that

M/S. Meremma Basavaraj Belli, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengalure

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 685/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, Sr. A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

payment towards employee’s contribution to Employees State Insurance Corporation Scheme (ESIC) and Provident Fund (P.F.) under section 36(1)(va) r/w section 2(24) of the Act, by the Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru, while processing the income tax return under section 143(1) of the Act, which was upheld

Axis Carriers and Logistics Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 619/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh MilwaniFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, Sr. A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

payment towards employee’s contribution to Employees State Insurance Corporation Scheme (ESIC) and Provident Fund (P.F.) under section 36(1)(va) r/w section 2(24) of the Act, by the Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru, while processing the income tax return under section 143(1) of the Act, which was upheld

Shri Tejindersingh S Anand, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 579/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai25 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, Sr. A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

payment towards employee’s contribution to Provident Fund (P.F.) and Employees State Insurance Corporation Scheme (ESIC) under section 36(1)(va) r/w section 2(24) of the Act, by the Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru, while processing the income tax return under section 143(1) of the Act, which was upheld

Mumbai District Central Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 429/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, Sr. A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

account of alleged delay in payment towards employee’s contribution to Provident Fund (P.F.) under section 36(1)(va) r/w section 2(24) of the Act, by the Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru, while processing the income tax return under section 143(1) of the Act, which was upheld

Chandresh Cabels Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 418/MUM/2022[2019-202]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2022AY 2019-202

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, Sr. A.R
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

delay in payment towards employee’s contribution to Employees State Insurance Corporation Scheme (ESIC) / Provident Fund (P.F.) under section 36(1)(va) r/w section 2(24) of the Act, by the Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru, while processing the income tax return under section 143(1) of the Act, which

Brillpharma Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 414/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Ruchi TamhankarFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, Sr. A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

delay in payment towards employee’s contribution to Provident Fund (P.F.) / Employees State Insurance Corporation Scheme (ESIC) under section 36(1)(va) r/w section 2(24) of the Act, by the Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru, while processing the income tax return under section 143(1) of the Act, which

M/S. Olive Bar & Kitchen Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 240/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh RajoraFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, Sr. A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

payment towards employee’s contribution to Employees State Insurance Corporation Scheme (ESIC) and Provident Fund (P.F.) under section 36(1)(va) r/w section 2(24) of the Act, by the Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru, while processing the income tax return under section 143(1) of the Act, which was upheld