DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The\nId. CIT(A) held that this decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding\nand must be followed.\n\n24.7 The learned CIT(A) further noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court\nclarified that the law laid down in Checkmate Services (supra) applies\nretrospectively, because it only explains the correct legal

NAVANEETHA ENTERPRISES,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Soundararajan K.\N\Nita No. 661/Bang/2025\N Assessment Year : 2019-20\Nm/S. Navaneetha Enterprises,\Nno. 38/1, Narayanappa Building,\Nelectronics City Post,\Nkonappana Agrahara,\Nbengaluru – 560 100.\Npan: Aajfn0086C\Nappellant\Nvs.\Nthe Income\Ntax Officer,\Nward – 2(2)(2),\Nbengaluru.\Nrespondent\N\Nassessee By\N:\Nshri Ravikiran, Ca\Nrevenue By\N:\Nshri Subramanian .S, Jcit-Dr\N\Ndate Of Hearing\N:\N06-06-2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement :\N02-09-2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Soundararajan K.\N\Nthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Order Of Nfac,\Ndelhi Dated 21/01/2025 In Respect Of The A.Y. 2019-20 & Raised The\Nfollowing Grounds.\N\N“1. Delay In Remittance Of Pf / Esi Ranging From 1 To 4\Ndays Was Attributed To Appellant'S Bank Not Being Able To\Nremit Contributions To Pf/Esi Directly Through Its Own\Ninternet Banking Facility; Your Appellant Was Prevented\Nfrom Sufficient Cause For The Delay In Remittance Of\Ncontributions.\N1.

Section 36(1)(va) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961, as the due date would need to be\ndetermined in accordance with the Act, Rule, Order or\nNotification as per the explanation below Sec. 36(1)(va)\nand not based on a Circular which issued under the\napproval of Central PF Commissioner.\n\n2. 6. Removal of grace period

DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone such delay, and the appellant must approach the appropriate authority separately. 24.9 The learned CIT(A) also observed that several reasons mentioned by the appellant for other delayed payments were not supported by documentary evidence. The learned CIT(A) further noted that similar delays were seen in earlier years as well. This suggested that the pattern of delay

DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone such delay, and the appellant must approach the appropriate authority separately. 24.9 The learned CIT(A) also observed that several reasons mentioned by the appellant for other delayed payments were not supported by documentary evidence. The learned CIT(A) further noted that similar delays were seen in earlier years as well. This suggested that the pattern of delay

SRI. AMIT KUMAR RAJENDRA PRASAD SINGH ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

condoned. 10.2 Subsequently, by virtue of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. cited (supra), the ratio has been laid down that any delay in depositing the employees contribution to the respective funds by an employer would amount to disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act of such contribution. Further

SRI. MANIKANDAN VAZHUKKAPAR KUMARAN,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

delay caused in filing the above appeals before this tribunal stands condoned. 4.1 On merits of the case, the ld. A.R. submitted that, the only issue that has been challenged by assessee before this Tribunal in all these appeals pertains to disallowance of employees contribution to ESI & PF u/s 36(1)(va

SRI. P. HARSHAVARDHANA REDDY,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

condone the delay of 144 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The assessee is an individual and filed return of income on 6.10.2018 for the impugned assessment year. Though various grounds are raised in this appeal, the only issue pertains to disallowance of belated payment of Rs.1,27,31,281 towards Provident Fund

RAMZANALI ASGAR KHAN,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

condoned. 10.2 Subsequently, by virtue of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. cited (supra), the ratio has been laid down that any delay in depositing the employees contribution to the respective funds by an employer would amount to disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act of such contribution. Further

RAMZANALI ASGAR KHAN ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

condoned. 10.2 Subsequently, by virtue of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. cited (supra), the ratio has been laid down that any delay in depositing the employees contribution to the respective funds by an employer would amount to disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act of such contribution. Further

MUNIYALLAPPA BHARATHI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20

condoned. 10.2 Subsequently, by virtue of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. cited (supra), the ratio has been laid down that any delay in depositing the employees contribution to the respective funds by an employer would amount to disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act of such contribution. Further

JURIMATRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita No.92/Bang/2025\N Assessment Years:2018-19\Njurimatrix Services India Pvt. Ltd.\Ng4, Aspen Building\Nmanyata Embassy Business Park\Nhebbal\Nbangalore 560045\Npan No: Aabcj6157D\Nappellant\Nacit\Nvs. Circle 4(3)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By : Sri K.R. Girish, A.R.\Nrespondent By : Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing : 21.04.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 15.07.2025\Norder\Nper Keshav Dubey:\Nthis Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against\Nthe Order Of The Ld. Pcit Dated 30.03.2023 Vide Din & Order No.\Nitba/Rev/F/Rev5/2022-23/1051648832(1) Passed U/S 263 Of\Nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For The Assessment\Nyear 2018-19.\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\Ngeneral Grounds Of Appeal\N1.

delayed employee contribution of PF & ESI under 36(1)(va) -\nRs 13,24,213\nAdditionally, in the computation of income forming part of assessment order dated 23\nMarch 2024, the Ld. AO had made certain mistakes which were apparent from\nrecord. The following mistakes apparent from record were made:\nDeduction u/s 10AA of the Act amounting to Rs.2

C S MANJUNATH,TUMAKURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WAR-1 & TPS, TUMKUR, TUMKUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

36(i)(va) does not arise since\nthe Appellant has not claimed the expense in their books. However,\nin the order under section 154 dated 06.06.2023, the expense was\nerroneously disallowed instead of being added to income. Hence, the\ntreatment made in the order is not correct in the law. Therefore,\norder under section 154 and consequently order under section

SMT. VASANTHI PADMANABHA SHERUGAR,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20

condone Page 2 of 10 the delay of 39 days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the same on merits. 3. The grounds raised read as follows: 1. That the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Centre (NFAC), ("CIT(A)" for short), is opposed to the applicable laws and facts

MUNISWAMY REDDY VENKATESHA,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan K

section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Assessee filed appeal against 143(1)(a) of the Act before learned CIT(A) with delay which was not condoned

MUNISWAMY REDDY VENKATESHA ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 4(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan K

section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Assessee filed appeal against 143(1)(a) of the Act before learned CIT(A) with delay which was not condoned

MUNISWAMY REDDY VENKATESHA ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan K

section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Assessee filed appeal against 143(1)(a) of the Act before learned CIT(A) with delay which was not condoned

REBECCA POOJA DSOUZA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(3)(3), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

sections": ["250", "36(1)(va)", "143(1)", "143(1)(iv)", "143(1)(a)", "37", "234A", "234B", "234C"], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned

MCAFEE SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

36(1)(va) respectively are rejected. 9. In the final assessment order, the A.O. had included in the computation statement the figures from the intimation u/s 143(1) of the I.T.Act instead of the returned income (which are not subject matter of adjudication in draft assessment order and DRP's directions). In other words, the A.O. has adopted figure