M/S.KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Kerala State Warehousing Vs Acit, Corporate Circle 1(2) Corporation Is Press Road Kochi 682018 Pb No. 1727, Warehousing Corporation Road Ernakulam 682016 Pan – Aabck1583G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Gopi, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shantam Bose, Cit Dr

disallowance on account of delayed deposit of employees’ contribution as per Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, which is a binding

THE PARAKODE SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,ADOOR vs. THE ITO,, KOLLAM

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Parakode Service Co-Op. The Income Tax Officer Bank Ltd. Ward 4, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Parakode, Adoor Karbala Junction Pathanamthitta 691554 Kollam 691001 Pan – Aaajt1587B Appellant Respondent

Section 36(1)(va) and disallowance of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act is opposed to law and against

M/S KANAKA POLYPACK PRIVATE LIMITED,ALUVA vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year :2018-19 M/S. Kanaka Polypack Private Limited, Acit, Vs. Xvi, Keezhmad Panchayat, Corporate Circle - 1(1), Ashokapuram,Aluva, Kochi – 682 018. Ernakulam District, Kerala – 683 101. Pan :Aafck 1498 J Assessee Respondent

disallowance to the extent of employee’s contribution. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. There is a delay of 12 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed a condonation petition in this regard. Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the view that there

MANJILAS AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD,THRISSUR vs. THACIT,CIRCLE-1(1 ), THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

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. 29. With regard

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRRISSUR vs. MANJILAS AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD., THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

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. 29. With regard

MANJILAS AGRO FOOD PVT.LTD.,THRISSUR vs. THE ITO,WARD-1(2),, THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

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. 29. With regard

M/S.IBS SOFTWARE SERVICES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act of INR.77,71,759/- (d) Disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act of 2 Assessment

WELCARE HOSPITAL, SA ROAD, VYTTILA,VYTTILA vs. ASS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE (1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

36(1)(va) of the Act by the revenue authorities. 3. The assessee is a super specialty hospital, filed its return of income electronically on 24.10.2018 declaring an income of Page 2 of 6 Rs.89,82,050. The return was processed by CPC and intimation u/s. 143(1) dated 10.12.2019 was issued on 19.12.2019 raising a demand of Rs.12

KAVUNGAL VAREED ITTEERA,KERALA vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2020-21

disallowance since the contribution to PF & ESI was made before the due date of filing the return. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We notice that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) has considered the issue of whether the employees contribution paid before

SHASTHA ENTERPRISES,KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD 3, KOLLAM

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, although the same had been deposited before the due date for filing

LAKSHMI HOSPITAL,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1), KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu(Assessment Year: 2019-20

disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act of Rs.34,509,917/-. The assessee challenged the order

THE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,MALAPPURAM vs. ITO, CIRCLE-1, TIRUR, TIRUR

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Malappuram District Co- Operative Bank Limited Head Office The Malappuram District Cooperative Bank Deputy Commissioner Malappuram Of Income-Tax Vs. Uphill Cpc Malappuram Bangalore Kerala 676 505 Pan No : Aaaat3207B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Hameed Hussain, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 11.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2023 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By Nfac Delhi Dated 9.11.2021 For Assessment Year 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. “The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Opposed To Law & The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Grossly Erred Both In Law & On Facts In Adding The Pf Contribution Amounting To Rs. 59,24,494/- By Virtue 36(1)(Va) Of.The Income Tax Act. This Will Be Covered The Malappuram District Co-Operative Bank Limited, Malappuram

36(1)(va) and section 2(24(x). 7. This issue was raised in prominent newspapers at that time. The said newspaper cuttings have been attached herewith for your kind perusal and records. 8. The proposed disallowance

SHRI. MURALEEDHARAN KALATHIL,COCHIN vs. THE ADIT, BENGALURU

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

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

disallowance of Rs.28,86,264 u/s 36(1)(va) of the I.T.Act for the reason that the assessee has not paid the employees’ contribution to PF and ESI before the prescribed due date under the respective Acts. 2 ITA No.116/Coch/2021. Sri.Muraleedharan Kalathil. 4. Aggrieved by the intimation u/s 143(1) of the I.T.Act, the assessee filed appeal before the first

THE MATHRUBHUMI PRINTING AND PUBLISHING CO.LTD.,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Mathrubhumi Printing & Dcit, Circle-1(1) & Tps Publishing Company Ltd. Kozhikode Vs. K.P. Kesavamenon Road Calicut 673001 Pan – Aaact8521G Appellant Respondent

section 36(1)(va) as well as 43B vide Finance Act, 2021 is retrospective since it has been clarified by CBDT in the Memorandum of Explanation that same applies w.e.f. 1-4-2021 only and therefore, the disallowance

KAIRALI EXPORTS,KILIMANOOR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRIVANDRUM

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Anil Kumar Dugar, Jm

1)(va) of the Act, and appellate authority upheld said disallowance. 2 M/s.Kairali Exports 3. At the time of call, none appeared on behalf of the assesse. However, Learned Departmental Representative pointed out that the issue involved in this case is duly covered by the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services P.Ltd

M/S SREELEKSHMI CASHEW COMPANY,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkeysreelekshmi Cashew Company The Income Tax Officer Lekshmi Prabha, Kadappakkada Ward - 1 & Tps, Kollam Vs. Kollam 691008 [Pan:Aazfs1211Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri T.V. Hariharan, Ca Respondent By: Dr. Prasanth V.K., Cit-Dr

36(1)(va) of the Act in assessment. The balance Rs.11,98,042 had been not similarly disallowed on the ground of it having been deposited by the due date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act, i.e., the time limit applicable for deposit of employer’s contribution to Employees’ Welfare Fund, deductible under section

ANDIAN KANDY RATHEESH,CALICUT vs. ITO, KOZHIKKODE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuandian Kandy Rateesh The Income Tax Officer 2.2171 A 1, Swastik Circle - 1(1), Tps Vs. Near Civil Station Road Kozhikode Calicut 673020 Pan – Acspr7919M Appellant Respondent

disallowance of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 3. The brief

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 36(1)(va) disallowance on the ground that the assessee ought to have credited the employees’ contribution to PF & ESI within

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M.S COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD, COCHIN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 36(1)(va) disallowance on the ground that the assessee ought to have credited the employees’ contribution to PF & ESI within