A2Z INFRASERVICES LIMITED,HARYANA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 27, DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम A2Z Infra Services Limited Dcit, O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Central Circle-2, Arjun Nagar, Dlf Phase-1, Shankar Chowk, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana. Udyog Vihar, Sector-19, Gurugram, Haryana. Pan No.Aahca0139L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम A2Z Infra Services Limited Dcit, O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Central Circle-27, Arjun Marg, Dlf Qe S.O., New Delhi. Sikanderpur, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No.Aahca0139L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

36( l)(va) on Contractor/Sub- Contractor. 7. That the Authorities below erred in confirming/sustaining the addition made of Rs.1,23,165/-. Income tax preparation assistant had mistakenly added (disallowance) this income in ITR form:- Particular In Income Tax Form Amount Remarks Interest on TDS Part A Ol-Other Information, clause no 8A(i) 6,114/- Interest on TDS is compensatory

HEBE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

36(1)(va), Section 43B, Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provisions of Finance Act 2021, Memorandum explaining the provisions in Finance Bill, 2021 and the specific amendments which will take effect from 01.04.2021, we hereby hold that no disallowance is called for belated payment of the employee’s contribution to the respective ESI and EPF fund

INDIAN GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

TDS statement and consequently 26AS. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside this issue to the record of the Assessing Officer for conducting a proper enquiry by calling upon the necessary information from TCE and then decide the issue. Needless to say, the assessee be given a proper opportunity of hearing before passing a fresh

MAHAGUN INDIA PVT. LTD,DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 13

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Itr U/S 139(1) & The Amendment As Made In The Section By Finance Bill 2020 Is Effective From A.Y 2020-21 .

36(1)(va) of the Act as made by CPC without appreciating the fact that the appellant has duly deposited all employee contribution to 2 ITA No.263/Del./2022 PFIESI before due date of filing of ITR u/s 139(1) and the amendment as made in the section by finance bill 2020 is effective from A.Y 2020-21 . 3) That

NEXGEN INFRACON PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Itr U/S 139(1) & The Amendment As Made In The Section By Finance Bill 2020 Is Effective From A.Y 2020-21 .

36(1)(va) of the Act as made by CPC without appreciating the fact that the appellant has duly deposited all employee contribution to PF/ESI before due date of filing of ITR u/s 139(1) and the amendment as made in the section by finance bill 2020 is effective from A.Y 2020-21 . 3) That

LOGIX HEIGHTS PRIVATE LTD,DLEHI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 13

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Itr U/S 139(1) & The Amendment As Made In The Section By Finance Bill 2020 Is Effective From A.Y 2020-21 .

36(1)(va) of the Act as made by CPC without appreciating the fact that the appellant has duly deposited all employee contribution to PF/ESI before due date of filing of ITR u/s 139(1) and the amendment as made in the section by finance bill 2020 is effective from A.Y 2020-21 . 3) That

ORAVEL STAYS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ORAVEL STAYS PRIVATE LIMITED),GURUGRAM vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

36(1)(va) of the Act and section 43B of the Act is retrospective in nature. 5. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law upholding the interest charged by the assessing officer under section 234D of the Act. 6. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the initiation of penalty proceedings under

ORAVEL STAYS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ORAVEL STAYS PRIVATE LIMITED),GURUGRAM vs. DCIT CIRCLE 76(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

36(1)(va) of the Act and section 43B of the Act is retrospective in nature. 5. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law upholding the interest charged by the assessing officer under section 234D of the Act. 6. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the initiation of penalty proceedings under

SUMITA SINGHAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-17(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

36(1)(va) of the Act and section 43B of the Act is retrospective in nature. 5. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law upholding the interest charged by the assessing officer under section 234D of the Act. 6. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the initiation of penalty proceedings under

R V INTERIOR PVT. LTD. ,DELHI vs. PCIT, DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

36(1)(va) of the Act and section 43B of the Act is retrospective in nature. 5. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law upholding the interest charged by the assessing officer under section 234D of the Act. 6. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the initiation of penalty proceedings under

GOLFGREEN INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Itr U/S 139(1)And The Amendment As Made In The Section By Finance Bill 2020 Is Effective From A.Y 2020-21 .

36(l)(va) of the Act as made by CPC without appreciating the fact that the appellant has duly deposited all employee contribution to PF/ ESI before due date of filing of ITR u/s 139(1)and the amendment as made in the section by finance bill 2020 is effective from A.Y 2020-21 . 3) That

VRV FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

TDS credits claimed by the assessee and computed the tax liability accordingly, hence Ground No.5 of assessee’s appeal for AY 2010-11 is determined in favour of the assessee for statistical purposes. GROUND NO.2 OF REVENUE’S APPEAL FOR AY 2011-12 24. Ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition of Rs.98,688/- made by the AO u/s 36(1

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VRV FOODS LTD., NOIDA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

TDS credits claimed by the assessee and computed the tax liability accordingly, hence Ground No.5 of assessee’s appeal for AY 2010-11 is determined in favour of the assessee for statistical purposes. GROUND NO.2 OF REVENUE’S APPEAL FOR AY 2011-12 24. Ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition of Rs.98,688/- made by the AO u/s 36(1

M/S. VRV FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

TDS credits claimed by the assessee and computed the tax liability accordingly, hence Ground No.5 of assessee’s appeal for AY 2010-11 is determined in favour of the assessee for statistical purposes. GROUND NO.2 OF REVENUE’S APPEAL FOR AY 2011-12 24. Ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition of Rs.98,688/- made by the AO u/s 36(1

AVIAXPERT PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 3(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.87/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Avia Xpert Pvt. Ltd. Ito, E-178, East Of Kailash, Vs. Ward 3(1), New Delhi. C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaica7960L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

TDS credit of Rs.77,52,917/-. However, a disallowance of Rs.1,80,95,758/- was made u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. Ld. Counsel submits that assessee filed a rectification application u/s 154 against order dated 08/04/2019 passed by CPC to accept the returned income and delete the disallowance made u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. Ld. Counsel

LAL BABU PANDEY,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD 1(4), GURGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

TDS credit accordingly assessee prays for deletion of interest in full. 6. That with out prejudice to the contention raised in the Grounds of Appeal No.5 above it is objected that the AO erred in charging interest of Rs.1,05,450/- ie. [u/s.234B Rs.72,270/- and u/s.234C Rs.33,180/] without appreciating the fact that deduction towards employees contribution

LAL BABU PANDEY,GURGAON vs. ITO,WARD-1(4), GURGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

TDS credit accordingly assessee prays for deletion of interest in full. 6. That with out prejudice to the contention raised in the Grounds of Appeal No.5 above it is objected that the AO erred in charging interest of Rs.1,05,450/- ie. [u/s.234B Rs.72,270/- and u/s.234C Rs.33,180/] without appreciating the fact that deduction towards employees contribution

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GENUS ELECTROTECH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

va), disallowance made by Assessing Officer was just and proper - Held, yes [Para 8] [In favour of revenue]" Respectfully, following the judgement of jurisdictional High Court the disallowance made by the AO is upheld as it is the case of late deposit of employee’s contribution. The ground of appeal is accordingly, dismissed.” 32.2 Before us, the learned Counsel