MAHENDRA PATEL BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

disallowed the employees' contribution under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s.2(24)(x) in each relevant year, to the extent it was deposited after the due date under the EPF Act.\n2.4 The summary of all the assessments is tabulate as below:\nParticulars\nΑ.Υ.2015- 16\nΑ.Υ. 2016- 17

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SANKALP RECREATION PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) relates to statutory obligations and does not necessarily require incriminating material for such an addition, as it is independent of the search findings and pertains to the non-compliance with statutory provisions. 7.2. After considering the facts, submissions, and the CIT(A)’s order, except for the ground related to PF/ESIC contributions, which will

SANKALP RECREATION PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) relates to statutory obligations and does not necessarily require incriminating material for such an addition, as it is independent of the search findings and pertains to the non-compliance with statutory provisions. 7.2. After considering the facts, submissions, and the CIT(A)’s order, except for the ground related to PF/ESIC contributions, which will

ORIENTAL ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

va) - addition, referencing Late Payment the Supreme Court's of Employee’s decision in Checkmate Contribution Services (P.) Ltd v. CIT, to Provident which clarifies that Fund (PF) employees' contributions must be paid within the due dates specified under the respective Acts . 2 Addition u/s Rs. 1,35,94,166/- The CIT(A) deleted this Revenue is 41(1) - addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. ORIENTAL ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, PCC NOTIFIED AREA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

va) - addition, referencing Late Payment the Supreme Court's of Employee’s decision in Checkmate Contribution Services (P.) Ltd v. CIT, to Provident which clarifies that Fund (PF) employees' contributions must be paid within the due dates specified under the respective Acts . 2 Addition u/s Rs. 1,35,94,166/- The CIT(A) deleted this Revenue is 41(1) - addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. ORIENTAL ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,, PCC NOTIFIED AREA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

va) - addition, referencing Late Payment the Supreme Court's of Employee’s decision in Checkmate Contribution Services (P.) Ltd v. CIT, to Provident which clarifies that Fund (PF) employees' contributions must be paid within the due dates specified under the respective Acts . 2 Addition u/s Rs. 1,35,94,166/- The CIT(A) deleted this Revenue is 41(1) - addition

THE MEHSANA URBAN CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE , MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

17. Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is as under: “Ld.NFAC/CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in disallowing employee's contribution to provident fund and ESI of Rs.90,64,955/- u/s 36(1)(va) ignoring fact that being first year of new payment gateway system implemented by EPFO and accordingly there were technical errors which results into delay

THE MEHSANA URBAN CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE , MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

17. Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is as under: “Ld.NFAC/CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in disallowing employee's contribution to provident fund and ESI of Rs.90,64,955/- u/s 36(1)(va) ignoring fact that being first year of new payment gateway system implemented by EPFO and accordingly there were technical errors which results into delay

THE MEHSANA URBAN CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE , MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

17. Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is as under: “Ld.NFAC/CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in disallowing employee's contribution to provident fund and ESI of Rs.90,64,955/- u/s 36(1)(va) ignoring fact that being first year of new payment gateway system implemented by EPFO and accordingly there were technical errors which results into delay

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LTD.(A SUCCESSOR OF LUK INDIA PVT. LTD)),VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1) (EARLIER ACIT, CIRCLE-1, HOSUR), VADODARA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

17. In the case of Ms. Nalina Dyave Gowda [2023] 146 taxmann.com 420 (Bangalore - Trib.) the assessee during, Financial Year 2018-19 (Assessment Year 2019-20) made payment of employees' contribution to ESI and PF beyond due date specified under relevant Act and claimed deduction of same under Section 36(1)(va). The Assessing Officer made disallowance

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX,CPC, BANGALORE (JAO-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE1(1)(1), VADODARA, GUJARAT

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

17. In the case of Ms. Nalina Dyave Gowda [2023] 146 taxmann.com 420 (Bangalore - Trib.) the assessee during, Financial Year 2018-19 (Assessment Year 2019-20) made payment of employees' contribution to ESI and PF beyond due date specified under relevant Act and claimed deduction of same under Section 36(1)(va). The Assessing Officer made disallowance

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. SCHAEFFLER INDIA LTD.( ERSTWHILE LUK INDIA PVT. LTD)), VADODARA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

17. In the case of Ms. Nalina Dyave Gowda [2023] 146 taxmann.com 420 (Bangalore - Trib.) the assessee during, Financial Year 2018-19 (Assessment Year 2019-20) made payment of employees' contribution to ESI and PF beyond due date specified under relevant Act and claimed deduction of same under Section 36(1)(va). The Assessing Officer made disallowance

DIVERSIFIED SERVICES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowance made by the CPC u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act on account of appellant's failure to pay the employee's contribution of PF/ESI of Rs.8,85,284/- within the prescribed due dates as per section 36(1)(va) is strictly in accordance with law. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced

AARK INFOSOFT PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Aark Infosoft Private Limited, The Acit, 45, Shetrunjay, 2Nd Floor, Above Circle-1(1)(1), Central Bank Of India, Bhattha Ahmedabad Cross Road, Paldi, Ahmedabad Gujarat-380007 Pan : Aahca 9986 H अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Divyang Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21.02.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 27.07.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Issuing A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act? 2. Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Making Disallowance Of Employees' Contribution To Pf & Esic Of Rs.5,51,657/- U/S 36(1) (Va) Of The Act?

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in issuing a notice

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

section 143(3) of the Act. The AO made certain disallowances and additions in the ITA No.1772/Ahd/2015 and other 8 appeals Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. ACIT-DCIT (by Assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2002-03 to 2007-08 3 income of the assessee for the respective A.Y.s. The details of the returns filed, and assessment completed are tabulated below

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

section 143(3) of the Act. The AO made certain disallowances and additions in the ITA No.1772/Ahd/2015 and other 8 appeals Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. ACIT-DCIT (by Assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2002-03 to 2007-08 3 income of the assessee for the respective A.Y.s. The details of the returns filed, and assessment completed are tabulated below

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

section 143(3) of the Act. The AO made certain disallowances and additions in the ITA No.1772/Ahd/2015 and other 8 appeals Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. ACIT-DCIT (by Assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2002-03 to 2007-08 3 income of the assessee for the respective A.Y.s. The details of the returns filed, and assessment completed are tabulated below

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. AMBALAL SARABHI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

section 143(3) of the Act. The AO made certain disallowances and additions in the ITA No.1772/Ahd/2015 and other 8 appeals Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. ACIT-DCIT (by Assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2002-03 to 2007-08 3 income of the assessee for the respective A.Y.s. The details of the returns filed, and assessment completed are tabulated below

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. AMBALAL SARABHI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

section 143(3) of the Act. The AO made certain disallowances and additions in the ITA No.1772/Ahd/2015 and other 8 appeals Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. ACIT-DCIT (by Assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2002-03 to 2007-08 3 income of the assessee for the respective A.Y.s. The details of the returns filed, and assessment completed are tabulated below