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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

36(1)(va) of the Act and Explanation 5 to section 43B of the Act which are prospective in nature and CBDT has clarified in the Explanatory Memorandum to Finance Bill, 2021 that the amendment is applicable from AY 2021-22. 3. We have heard the both the parties on admission of additional grounds. In our opinion

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

36(1)(va) of the Act and Explanation 5 to section 43B of the Act which are prospective in nature and CBDT has clarified in the Explanatory Memorandum to Finance Bill, 2021 that the amendment is applicable from AY 2021-22. 3. We have heard the both the parties on admission of additional grounds. In our opinion

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

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

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

IIFL SAMASTA FINANCE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

36(1)(va) of the Act treating as under reported\nunder sub section (2) of Section 270A of the Act whereas\ndisallowance of deduction of Health & education cess u/s 37 of the\nAct was considered under reported is in consequence of\nmisreporting of income under section 270A(2) rws 270(9) of the Act.\n5.2

M/S. SUMATHI NURSING & MATERNITY HOME,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTER, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K

68,300/- under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Appeals] was not justified in confirming the disallowance / adjustment made by the learned assessing officer. in the intimation u/s. 143[1] of the Act on account of belated remittance of Provident Fund and Employees' State Insurance u/s. 36[1][va] amounting

SRI RAJANIKANTH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

36[1][va] of the Act and the insertion of Explanation 5 to section 43B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01/04/2021 was clarificatory 1 declaratory in the nature and. therefore, these amendments were retrospective in operation under the fact and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 4.1 The learned

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

68,35,620/- as against the returned income of Rs. 64,98,610/- and thereby confirming the addition of Rs. 3,37,012/- u/s.36[1][va] of the Act, allegedly based upon the disallowance indicated in the Tax Audit Report of the Chartered Accountant in Form 3CD, under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case

M/S. FASHION MATRIX CLOTHING,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

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

68,312 /- (additions of Rs 53,46,787/- on revised) on the facts and circumstances of the case. Issue related to Explanation 5 to section 43B 3. The Learned CIT(A) applied the provisions of Finance Act 2021, being explanation 5 to section 43B inserted vide Finance Act 2021, applicable with effect from 01/04/2021 (AY 2021-22) onwards

TOYOTA BOSHOKU AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BIDADI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OR THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1)(1), KORAMANGALA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68,190/- in its return, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act by the CPC, resulting in a disallowance of ₹5,13,01,761/- towards gratuity expenses under section 43B of the Act. This adjustment increased the assessee’s income to ₹ 63,40,69,950/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny

SMT. NANJAMMA,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

36[1][va] of the Act and the insertion of Explanation 5 to section 43B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01/04/2021 was clarificatory / declaratory in the nature and therefore. these amendments were retrospective in operation under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 4.1 The learned CIT[A] / NFAC

SMT. NANJAMMA,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

36[1][va] of the Act and the insertion of Explanation 5 to section 43B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01/04/2021 was clarificatory / declaratory in the nature and therefore. these amendments were retrospective in operation under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 4.1 The learned CIT[A] / NFAC

LEGACY GLOBAL PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

section 36(1)(va) i.e. on or before the due date under the relevant employee welfare legislation like PF Act, ESI Act etc., for the same to be otherwise allowable u/s.43B. We therefore see no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(Appeals). The grounds taken by the assessee on this issue is dismissed. Page

RAMAKRISHNAPPA NAGARAJ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

36(1)(va) of the Act by the revenue authorities. 3. The assessee is an individual and filed return of under the head income from business or profession declaring income of Rs.21,74,290 and claiming a refund of Rs.3,86,670. The AO vide intimation u/s. 143(1) disallowed a sum of Rs.75

MARAPPA SHIVAKUMAR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

36(1)(va) of the Act and Explanation 5 to section 43B of the Act are retrospective in nature even though CBDT has clarified in the Explanatory Memorandum to Finance Bill, 2021 that the amendment is applicable from AY 2021-22. Additional Ground 4. That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in making disallowance

EQUIPMENT FABRICATORS,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68,662/- against the returned income of Rs.54,95,175/-. 7. The Ld CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal on technical grounds, erred in upholding the addition of Rs, 11,73,481/- made by the Ld AO towards disallowance of PF and ESI contribution of employees paid beyond the due date under section 36(1)(va

CHANDRAMOULI,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

68,554/- and Rs.13,19,485/- being employees contribution to provident fund and employees state insurance, u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] respectively in AY 2018-19 and 2019-20. 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of providing Security Services under the name and style Ganga Engineering Works

CHANDRAMOULI,MYSURU vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

68,554/- and Rs.13,19,485/- being employees contribution to provident fund and employees state insurance, u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] respectively in AY 2018-19 and 2019-20. 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of providing Security Services under the name and style Ganga Engineering Works

ASIA SEEDS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

68,984. for A.Y.2018-2019 and Rs.66,37,014 for A.Y. 2019-2020. The reason for the difference between the returned income and the income determined u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act was on account of disallowance of late remittance of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI under the respective Acts. 4. Aggrieved by the intimation u/s 143(1

ASIA SEEDS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

68,984. for A.Y.2018-2019 and Rs.66,37,014 for A.Y. 2019-2020. The reason for the difference between the returned income and the income determined u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act was on account of disallowance of late remittance of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI under the respective Acts. 4. Aggrieved by the intimation u/s 143(1