BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

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.

20 results for “reassessment”+ Section 36(1)(va)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai44Delhi29Jaipur28Chandigarh22Chennai20Indore18Guwahati12Jodhpur11Raipur11Kolkata9Bangalore9Hyderabad8Ahmedabad7Cochin6Rajkot5Pune3Allahabad3Karnataka3Lucknow3Surat2Cuttack1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)27Section 26322Section 14716Section 10A12Deduction10Depreciation9Section 1488Section 80I8Disallowance8Section 36(1)(va)

UCAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI-3,, CHENNAI

ITA 1018/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

va) of Sec.36(1) of the Act. Pursuant to such a query, the assessee replied to AO on 06.08.2020 [a copy of which is found placed at Page Nos.23-25 of the Paper Book at Page No.25], in tabular form giving the details of (i) sums separately regarding employee’s contribution towards PF/ESI received from employee

PAALAR SHOES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

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

6
Section 32(1)(ii)6
Reassessment6
ITA 1640/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1640/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Paalar Shoes Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 151/4, Mount Poonamalee Road, Income Tax, Ramapuram, Chennai 600 089. Central Circle 1(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aaecp6556B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.05.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 18, Chennai, For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Raised 4 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 36(1)(va)

reassessment proceedings are maintainable on the same issue, which was attained finality by the order of the ld. CIT(A). We find in the present case the issue under 5 I.T.A. No.1640/Chny/25 section 36(1)(va

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SRINIVASA FASHIONS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos 1965, 1966 & 1967 are

ITA 1130/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 /Mds/2016 & 2096/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12& 2009-10 M/S. Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1A, Regency Apartments, Vs. Corporate Circle -6(2), No. 5, 1St Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, New Block, 7Th Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 034. [Pan: Aaics 9511R]

For Appellant: ShriT. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 32(1)(ii)Section 47

reassessment is bad in law. 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing depreciation to the tune of Rs.89,27,762/-. 5. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in invoking proviso to section 32(1 )(ii) and holding that

SRINIVASA FASHIONS PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos 1965, 1966 & 1967 are

ITA 1966/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 /Mds/2016 & 2096/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12& 2009-10 M/S. Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1A, Regency Apartments, Vs. Corporate Circle -6(2), No. 5, 1St Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, New Block, 7Th Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 034. [Pan: Aaics 9511R]

For Appellant: ShriT. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 32(1)(ii)Section 47

reassessment is bad in law. 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing depreciation to the tune of Rs.89,27,762/-. 5. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in invoking proviso to section 32(1 )(ii) and holding that

SRINIVASA FASHIONS PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos 1965, 1966 & 1967 are

ITA 1968/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 /Mds/2016 & 2096/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12& 2009-10 M/S. Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1A, Regency Apartments, Vs. Corporate Circle -6(2), No. 5, 1St Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, New Block, 7Th Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 034. [Pan: Aaics 9511R]

For Appellant: ShriT. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 32(1)(ii)Section 47

reassessment is bad in law. 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing depreciation to the tune of Rs.89,27,762/-. 5. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in invoking proviso to section 32(1 )(ii) and holding that

SRINIVASA FASHIONS PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos 1965, 1966 & 1967 are

ITA 1967/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 /Mds/2016 & 2096/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12& 2009-10 M/S. Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1A, Regency Apartments, Vs. Corporate Circle -6(2), No. 5, 1St Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, New Block, 7Th Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 034. [Pan: Aaics 9511R]

For Appellant: ShriT. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 32(1)(ii)Section 47

reassessment is bad in law. 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing depreciation to the tune of Rs.89,27,762/-. 5. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in invoking proviso to section 32(1 )(ii) and holding that

SRINIVASA FASHIONS PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos 1965, 1966 & 1967 are

ITA 1965/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 /Mds/2016 & 2096/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12& 2009-10 M/S. Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1A, Regency Apartments, Vs. Corporate Circle -6(2), No. 5, 1St Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, New Block, 7Th Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 034. [Pan: Aaics 9511R]

For Appellant: ShriT. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 32(1)(ii)Section 47

reassessment is bad in law. 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing depreciation to the tune of Rs.89,27,762/-. 5. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in invoking proviso to section 32(1 )(ii) and holding that

SRINIVASA FASHIONS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-6(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos 1965, 1966 & 1967 are

ITA 2096/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 /Mds/2016 & 2096/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12& 2009-10 M/S. Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1A, Regency Apartments, Vs. Corporate Circle -6(2), No. 5, 1St Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, New Block, 7Th Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 034. [Pan: Aaics 9511R]

For Appellant: ShriT. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 32(1)(ii)Section 47

reassessment is bad in law. 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing depreciation to the tune of Rs.89,27,762/-. 5. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in invoking proviso to section 32(1 )(ii) and holding that

E2E SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for AY 2008-09 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in terms of above order

ITA 3101/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 3100 & 3101/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2013-14 M/S. E2E Supply Chain V. Assistant Commissioner Solutions Limited, Of Income Tax, 4Th Floor, East Coast Centre, Corporate Circle -1(1), 534, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aabce 7932 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. S. Dwarakesh, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2026 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of : 09.03.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm:

For Appellant: Mr. S. Dwarakesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

36(1)(va) - 129,340 delayed remittance of employees contribution to PF & ESI Total 40,66,15,996 5. Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) sustained both disallowances on account of payment made to fictitious transporters and disallowances u/s.40A(3). 6. The assessee further challenged the order of the CIT(A) before this Tribunal

E2E SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for AY 2008-09 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in terms of above order

ITA 3100/CHNY/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 3100 & 3101/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2013-14 M/S. E2E Supply Chain V. Assistant Commissioner Solutions Limited, Of Income Tax, 4Th Floor, East Coast Centre, Corporate Circle -1(1), 534, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aabce 7932 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. S. Dwarakesh, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2026 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of : 09.03.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm:

For Appellant: Mr. S. Dwarakesh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

36(1)(va) - 129,340 delayed remittance of employees contribution to PF & ESI Total 40,66,15,996 5. Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) sustained both disallowances on account of payment made to fictitious transporters and disallowances u/s.40A(3). 6. The assessee further challenged the order of the CIT(A) before this Tribunal

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. PVP VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1707/CHNY/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 28

36 and subsequently, these grounds were revised and have taken the following grounds:- 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the treatment of royalty of Rs.2 Lakh as ‘income from other sources’. 2.2 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that royalties are taxable under the head of Income from Business or Profession. By virtue of section

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. PVP VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2308/CHNY/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 28

36 and subsequently, these grounds were revised and have taken the following grounds:- 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the treatment of royalty of Rs.2 Lakh as ‘income from other sources’. 2.2 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that royalties are taxable under the head of Income from Business or Profession. By virtue of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. OASYS CYBERMATICS PVT LTD, CHENNAI

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

ITA 3102/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Mr. ARV Srinivasan, CIT for Mr. Bipin C. N., CITFor Respondent: Mr. Ravi Kannan &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)Section 5(3)

section 36(1)(va) of the Act, the Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of Rs.0.52 crore. Accordingly, reassessment u/s. 147 of the Act was completed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. RP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED, ERODE

In the result, all these four appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 335/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Shivanand K. Kalakeri, CITFor Respondent: Mr. N.Arjun Raj, Advocate
Section 250(1)Section 80Section 80I

reassessment proceedings assessee has referred to CBDT Circular dated 18/5/10 and has stated that the same mentions that the infrastructure developed and handed over to the Government is also eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. Also reference is made to the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Patel Engineering Ltd. Vs. DCIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE vs. M/S RPP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED, ERODE

In the result, all these four appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 333/CHNY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Shivanand K. Kalakeri, CITFor Respondent: Mr. N.Arjun Raj, Advocate
Section 250(1)Section 80Section 80I

reassessment proceedings assessee has referred to CBDT Circular dated 18/5/10 and has stated that the same mentions that the infrastructure developed and handed over to the Government is also eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. Also reference is made to the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Patel Engineering Ltd. Vs. DCIT

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1016/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

36)/CIT-l/263/2009-10 for the above assessment year is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT erred in passing the order u/s 263 of the Act in directing the Assessing Officer to re-examine the computation of Long Term Capital Gains as well as to re- examine the eligibility of the deduction

ACIT,, CHENNAI vs. SRI. K.SRIKANTH,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1324/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

36)/CIT-l/263/2009-10 for the above assessment year is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT erred in passing the order u/s 263 of the Act in directing the Assessing Officer to re-examine the computation of Long Term Capital Gains as well as to re- examine the eligibility of the deduction

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1015/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

36)/CIT-l/263/2009-10 for the above assessment year is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT erred in passing the order u/s 263 of the Act in directing the Assessing Officer to re-examine the computation of Long Term Capital Gains as well as to re- examine the eligibility of the deduction

SHRI K.SRIKANTH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 307/CHNY/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

36)/CIT-l/263/2009-10 for the above assessment year is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT erred in passing the order u/s 263 of the Act in directing the Assessing Officer to re-examine the computation of Long Term Capital Gains as well as to re- examine the eligibility of the deduction

HEYLANDS EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1539/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: 21.08.2024
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 36(1)(va)

va) of Sec.36(1) of the Act. Pursuant to such a query, the assessee replied to AO on 06.08.2020 [a copy of which is found placed at Page Nos.23-25 of the Paper Book at Page No.25], in tabular form giving the details of (i) sums separately regarding employee’s contribution towards PF/ESI received from employee