Search: disallowance | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

Search Judgments
Browse by Bench
Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

442 results for “disallowance”+ Section 36(1)(va)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,251 Mumbai827 Kolkata553 Bangalore442 Chennai406 Jaipur300 Pune292 Ahmedabad225 Chandigarh188 Hyderabad179 Raipur128 Indore119 Nagpur85 Surat79 Visakhapatnam70 Agra66 Amritsar59 Lucknow59 Cuttack49 Guwahati47 Jodhpur41 Cochin39 Rajkot27 Jabalpur18 Ranchi15 Karnataka15 Varanasi12 Patna9 Panaji8 Dehradun7 Allahabad5 SC5 Telangana4 Rajasthan3 Calcutta2 Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 139(1)194 Section 143(1)176 Section 36(1)(va)173 Section 43B112 Disallowance88 Deduction66 Section 3664 Addition to Income57 Section 25041 Section 154

SRI. CHANDRAKANT SHAMAPPA KONTHA,HUBLI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS, HUBLI

In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2396/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 143Section 36Section 5

disallowance under section 36 (1) (va) accordingly. 10. With respect to the disallowance under section 43B of the act he found

SRI. CHANDRAKANT SHAMAPPA KONTHA,HUBLI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, HUBLI

In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2397/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore

Showing 1–20 of 442 · Page 1 of 23

...

29

Section 143(1)(a)26

Rectification u/s 15411

09 Dec 2025

AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 143Section 36Section 5

disallowance under section 36 (1) (va) accordingly. 10. With respect to the disallowance under section 43B of the act he found

THAMANNA ,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE-2(1) , MYSORE

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

ITA 1188/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

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

disallowance of the amount u/s 36(1)(va) was sent and the assessee relying on certain judgments filed objections as under:- “It is submitted, that although i did not deposit the contribution, within the stipulated time, as contemplated by the paragraph-30 of the PF scheme or before the due date under the provisions of the PF Scheme/Act, I deposited

GLOBAL SECURITY SERVICES ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 150/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Akshaya K.S., CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

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

disallowed said payment made by assessee under section 36(1)(va) by passing intimation order under section 143(1)(a)(iv). It was noted

M/S. ADVAITH MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

ITA 525/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri H. Vinay Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinath S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) which is not permissible. The employer’s contribution is covered u/s. 43B(b) of the Act and employees’ contribution is covered u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. Section

MOOG MOTION CONTROLS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 184/BANG/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Moog Motion Controls Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Site No.42-43, Doraisanipalya Circle – 4(1)(1), Village, Vs. Bengaluru. Opp. Oracle (Kalyani Magnum), Bilekahalli, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aadcm 3828 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Srinivas K. P, Ca Revenue By : Shri. V. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Srinivas K. P, CAFor Respondent: Shri. V. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 90

36(1)(va) & it has also been held that the disallowance can also be made u/s 143(1)(a)(iv) on the basis of audit report 11. The aforesaid observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court would leave no room for doubt or ambiguity regarding the real intent and purport of section

M/S. BANGALORE PHARMACEUTICAL AND RESEARCH LABORATORY PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 491/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar, H., CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 244ASection 36(1)(va)

disallowance cannot be made by invoking Explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(va) r.w. Explanation 5 to Section 43B inserted

M/S. NANDI HOSPITALITY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 296/BANG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

Section 36(1)(va) towards disallowance of PF and ESI Contribution of Employees') b) Addition of Rs. 16,58,207/- Disallowance

M/S. NANDI HOSPITALITY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 294/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

Section 36(1)(va) towards disallowance of PF and ESI Contribution of Employees') b) Addition of Rs. 16,58,207/- Disallowance

M/S. NANDI HOSPITALITY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 295/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

Section 36(1)(va) towards disallowance of PF and ESI Contribution of Employees') b) Addition of Rs. 16,58,207/- Disallowance

M/S. NIRMAL ENVIRO SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1154/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojarishri Panati Vidyanath Reddy Vs Acit, Circle - 4(3)(1) 10, 32Nd Main, 5Th Cross Bengaluru Dollars Colony, Btm Layout 1St Stage, Bengaluru 560068 Pan – Afmpr3580F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Nirmal Enviro Solutsions P. Ltd. Vs Acit, Circle - 3(1)(1) 26, 9Th Cross, 16Th Main Bengaluru Btm Layout, 1St Stage Bengaluru 560068 Pan – Aadcn1064H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Miss Sunaiana Bhatia, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.01.2023 O R D E R Per: Chandra Poojari, A.M.

For Appellant: Miss Sunaiana Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36Section 36(1)(va)

section 36(1)(va) of the Act that amount belatedly paid at Rs.13,48,410/- same was disallowed by AO u/s 143(1

SRI PANATI VIDYANATH REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1148/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojarishri Panati Vidyanath Reddy Vs Acit, Circle - 4(3)(1) 10, 32Nd Main, 5Th Cross Bengaluru Dollars Colony, Btm Layout 1St Stage, Bengaluru 560068 Pan – Afmpr3580F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Nirmal Enviro Solutsions P. Ltd. Vs Acit, Circle - 3(1)(1) 26, 9Th Cross, 16Th Main Bengaluru Btm Layout, 1St Stage Bengaluru 560068 Pan – Aadcn1064H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Miss Sunaiana Bhatia, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.01.2023 O R D E R Per: Chandra Poojari, A.M.

For Appellant: Miss Sunaiana Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36Section 36(1)(va)

section 36(1)(va) of the Act that amount belatedly paid at Rs.13,48,410/- same was disallowed by AO u/s 143(1

ITEK PACKZ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 995/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 244ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)

section 36(1)(va) of the Act that amount belatedly paid at Rs.13,48,410/- same was disallowed by AO u/s 143(1

MASS FAB TECHNOLOGIES,BANGALORE vs. CIT(APPEALS), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1079/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 244ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)

section 36(1)(va) of the Act that amount belatedly paid at Rs.13,48,410/- same was disallowed by AO u/s 143(1

M/S. GARUDA SECURITY SERVICES,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1051/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1051 & 1052/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra Chakravarthy, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

disallowance of Section 143(1)(a)(iv). When the due date under Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) is judicially

M/S. GARUDA SECURITY SERVICES,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1052/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1051 & 1052/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra Chakravarthy, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

disallowance of Section 143(1)(a)(iv). When the due date under Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) is judicially

M/S. SYNDICATE BANK,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, UDUPI

In the result, grounds 6 and 9 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1885/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. S.Ananthan, CA & Smt.Lalitha Rameshwaran, CAFor Respondent: Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

va) 1008,00,06,232 4. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) 87,91,40,567 5. Provision for wage revision 240,00,00,000 Total disallowance / addition 2337,41,91,131 3. The Assessing Officer also assessed tax payable u/s 115JB of the I.T.Act at Rs.757,13,40,716 after making several additions to the book profits. 4. Aggrieved

M/S. CADOPT TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

ITA 726/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.R.E.Balasubramaniyam, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR

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

36(1)(va) and section 43B vide Finance Act, 2021 as retrospective in nature is untenable and 2 ITA No.726/Bang/2021. M/s.Cadopt Technologies Private Limited. unwarranted inasmuch as the same is opposed to various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the subject and also on the fact that the Memorandum explaining the provisions in the Finance Bill, 2021, issued

M/S. SURESH ELECTRICALS,BELLARY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 724/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Suresh Electricals, Vs. Dcit, Ward No.25, Cmc T. S. No.227, Tilak Cpc, Nagar, Khb Colony, Bengaluru. Bellary – 583 101. Pan : Abyfs 9751 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. B. S. Balachandran, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2022 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Nfac, Delhi, Dated 12.07.2022, Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Only Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Revenue Authorities Were Justified In Disallowing Payment Made To Esi/Pf Being Employees’ Share Of Contribution Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). 3. In This Regard, It Is Pertinent To Note That The Employee Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Was Promulgated To Provide For Such Institution Of Provident Funds, Pension Fund & Deposit-Linked Insurance Fund For Employees In Factories & Other Establishments. It Aims To Build Adequate Retirement Corpus For The Salaried Class Of Employees. The Fund Includes Contributions From The Employer & Employee Both, Page 2 Of 14

For Appellant: Shri. B. S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

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

disallowing payment made to ESI/PF being employees’ share of contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

CHASE SECURITY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 796/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Chase Security, Vs. The Ito, No.16/A, 1St Floor, Millar Tank Bund Ward – 6(3)(1), Cpc, Road, Vasanth Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 052. Pan : Aaefc 2412 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sheethal Borkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2022 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Dated 29.04.2021 By The Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Only Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Revenue Authorities Were Justified In Disallowing Payment Made To Esi/Pf Being Employees’ Share Of Contribution Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). 3. In This Regard, It Is Pertinent To Note That The Employee Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Was Promulgated To Provide For Such Institution Of Provident Funds, Pension Fund & Deposit-Linked Insurance Fund For Employees In Factories & Other Establishments. It Aims To Build Adequate Retirement Corpus For The Salaried Class Of Employees. The Fund Includes Contributions From The Employer & Employee Both, Page 2 Of 14

For Appellant: Smt. Sheethal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

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

disallowing payment made to ESI/PF being employees’ share of contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter