VIDYADHAR TIWARI,BADDI vs. ITO, , BADDI

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 18/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/O Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anjpb7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

1(a) That the Ld CIT(A) erred on facts and law ignoring the distinction between provision of section 36(l)(v) r.w.s 43B and provisions of section 36(l)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which clearly provide for different treatment While the delayed payment of employers contribution is allowable if found before

METALMAN AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -1,, LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 18/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/O Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anjpb7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

1(a) That the Ld CIT(A) erred on facts and law ignoring the distinction between provision of section 36(l)(v) r.w.s 43B and provisions of section 36(l)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which clearly provide for different treatment While the delayed payment of employers contribution is allowable if found before

SH. VIJAY KUMAR SINGH,BADDI vs. ITO , BADDI

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 18/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/O Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anjpb7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

1(a) That the Ld CIT(A) erred on facts and law ignoring the distinction between provision of section 36(l)(v) r.w.s 43B and provisions of section 36(l)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which clearly provide for different treatment While the delayed payment of employers contribution is allowable if found before

RIDE LINK AUTO,LUDHIANA vs. ITO WARD 7 (1), LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 18/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/O Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anjpb7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

1(a) That the Ld CIT(A) erred on facts and law ignoring the distinction between provision of section 36(l)(v) r.w.s 43B and provisions of section 36(l)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which clearly provide for different treatment While the delayed payment of employers contribution is allowable if found before

PARMINDER SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 18/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/O Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anjpb7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

1(a) That the Ld CIT(A) erred on facts and law ignoring the distinction between provision of section 36(l)(v) r.w.s 43B and provisions of section 36(l)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which clearly provide for different treatment While the delayed payment of employers contribution is allowable if found before

SH. VIJAY KUMAR SINGH,BADDI vs. ITO , BADDI

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 18/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/O Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anjpb7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

1(a) That the Ld CIT(A) erred on facts and law ignoring the distinction between provision of section 36(l)(v) r.w.s 43B and provisions of section 36(l)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which clearly provide for different treatment While the delayed payment of employers contribution is allowable if found before

SANDEEP GUPTA,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1),, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 18/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/O Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anjpb7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

1(a) That the Ld CIT(A) erred on facts and law ignoring the distinction between provision of section 36(l)(v) r.w.s 43B and provisions of section 36(l)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which clearly provide for different treatment While the delayed payment of employers contribution is allowable if found before

TEGSONS INDIA,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 18/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/O Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anjpb7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

1(a) That the Ld CIT(A) erred on facts and law ignoring the distinction between provision of section 36(l)(v) r.w.s 43B and provisions of section 36(l)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which clearly provide for different treatment While the delayed payment of employers contribution is allowable if found before

ITO, WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA vs. SH. SITA RAM SINGLA, LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 18/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/O Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anjpb7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

1(a) That the Ld CIT(A) erred on facts and law ignoring the distinction between provision of section 36(l)(v) r.w.s 43B and provisions of section 36(l)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which clearly provide for different treatment While the delayed payment of employers contribution is allowable if found before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, PATIALA vs. PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, PATIALA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

v) respectively, of section 36(1), subject to certain limits. However, section 36 does not provide for a similar deduction from business income in respect of the contribution made by the employer, on behalf of the employee, to the New Pension System (NPS) account. 10.4 Section 36 has been amended by insertion of a new clause (iva) in sub-section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, PATIALA, PATIALA vs. PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, PATIALA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

v) respectively, of section 36(1), subject to certain limits. However, section 36 does not provide for a similar deduction from business income in respect of the contribution made by the employer, on behalf of the employee, to the New Pension System (NPS) account. 10.4 Section 36 has been amended by insertion of a new clause (iva) in sub-section

ITO-WARD-2(1), LUDHIANA vs. M/S GLORY KNITWEARS PVT.LTD, LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: The Filing Of Return Wherever Employee'S Contribution Is Disallowed For Once & All If Payment Is Delayed Beyond The Prescribed Time.

v) r.w.s 43B and provisions of section 36(1 )(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which clearly provide for different treatment. While the delayed payment of employers contribution is allowable if found before the filing of return wherever employee's contribution is disallowed

ITO-WARD-2(1), LUDHIANA vs. M/S GLORY KNITWEARS PVT.LTD, LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: The Filing Of Return Wherever Employee'S Contribution Is Disallowed For Once & All If Payment Is Delayed Beyond The Prescribed Time.

v) r.w.s 43B and provisions of section 36(1 )(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which clearly provide for different treatment. While the delayed payment of employers contribution is allowable if found before the filing of return wherever employee's contribution is disallowed

THE JABO MAJRO CO-OPERATIVE LABOUR AND CONSTRUCTION SOCIETY LTD.,MALERKOTLA vs. ITO, MALERKOTLA

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

Sections 36(va) as well as 43B vide Finance Act, 2021 to this effect but also the CBDT has issued Memorandum of Explanation that the same applies w.e.f. 1.4.2021 only. It is further not an issue that the forergoing legislative amendments have proposed employers contributions; disallowances u/s 43B as against employee u/s 36 (va) of the Act; respectively. However, keeping

IND SWIFT LABORATORIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 35(2AB) of the Act ignoring the suo motu disallowance of Rs.10,51,71,451/- made by the assessee on account of research development expenditure claimed in the profit and loss and the said action of the AO will lead to double addition of the same amount in the hands of the assessee. 6. i) On the facts

TEJ PAL GUPTA,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 382/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sh. Tej Pal Gupta, The Dcit, बनाम H. No. 346, Cpc, Sector 21, Bengaluru Panchkula "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaupg1545N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

1) return and after the due date prescribed in the corresponding statutes; respectively. I notice in this factual backdrop that the legislature has not only incorporated necessary amendments in Sections 36(va) as well as 43B vide Finance Act, 2021 to ITA No. 32-Chd-2021 Sh. Tej Pal Gupta, Panchkula 7 this effect but also the CBDT has issued

ACIT, PATIALA vs. M/S THE STATE BANK OF PATIALA, PATIALA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D & The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D & The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D

1) Dividend income exempt u/s 10 (34) & (35) Rs.4,38,91,510/- 2) Net interest income exempt u/s 10(15)(iv)(h) Rs.1,95,64,795/- Total : Rs.6,34,56,305/- 21. The Assessing Officer, therefore, disallowed expenses as per the provisions of section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules

THE STATE BANK OF INDIA,PATIALA vs. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D & The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D & The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D

1) Dividend income exempt u/s 10 (34) & (35) Rs.4,38,91,510/- 2) Net interest income exempt u/s 10(15)(iv)(h) Rs.1,95,64,795/- Total : Rs.6,34,56,305/- 21. The Assessing Officer, therefore, disallowed expenses as per the provisions of section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS. BECTORS FOOD SPECIALTIES PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

36(1)(iii). • Honble ITAT decisions quoted by assessee have not considered the decision of Honble P/H HC in Avon Cycles and Punjab Tractor. 5. In view of the above submissions it is prayed that the disallowance made u/s 14A by the AO may kindly be upheld. 9.11 Ld. AR reiterated the arguments taken before