FLYING FABRICATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

36(1)(va) of the Act? (b) Whether the deletion of the 2nd proviso to Section 43B by way of amendment by the Finance Act, 2003 is retrospective in nature?" 16. These questions were answered by the Division Bench in the following manner :- "7. Having heard the learned counsel for the Revenue, as well as, the assessee

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

36(1)(va) of the Act? (b) Whether the deletion of the 2nd proviso to Section 43B by way of amendment by the Finance Act, 2003 is retrospective in nature?" 16. These questions were answered by the Division Bench in the following manner :- "7. Having heard the learned counsel for the Revenue, as well as, the assessee

TINNA RUBBER AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-25(1), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act of 1961 made by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(1)(a) by order dated 16.12.2021 is hereby set-aside. Consequently, the order dated 15.07.2024 passed by the CIT (Appeals) and the subsequent order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the ITAT are also set-aside. However, liberty is reserved

TINNA RUBBER AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-25(1), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act of 1961 made by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(1)(a) by order dated 16.12.2021 is hereby set-aside. Consequently, the order dated 15.07.2024 passed by the CIT (Appeals) and the subsequent order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the ITAT are also set-aside. However, liberty is reserved

SUGANDH,MORADABAD vs. ITD, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Sugandh, Vs Itd, Jawahar Market, G.M.D.Road, Cpc, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh-244001. Bengaluru. Pan-Aaefs7109J Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 30.12.2021

36(1)(va) being the late payments made towards ESI and PF subscriptions by the assessee and determined total income at Rs.40,62,934/-. 4. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A), confirmed the addition. 5. Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issues raised

BRIJBASI ART PRESS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(1), New Delhi M/S. Brijbasi Art Press Ltd., E- 46/11, Okhla Indl. Area, Phase- Ii, New Delhi Pan :Aaacb0044L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section shall apply in relation to any sum which is actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date applicable in his case for furnishing the return of income under sub-s. (1) of s. 139 in respect of the previous year in which the liability to pay such sum was incurred as aforesaid and the evidence

RATIONAL BUSINESS CORPORATION PVT LTD,SONIPAT vs. DCIT CIRCLE-19(1), DELHI

Appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4402 & 4403/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 बनाम Rational Business Corporation Dcit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle 19(1), C.R. Building, Bahalgarh Chowk, Delhi, Sonepat Road, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Bahalgarh (73), Sonipat. Pan No.Aadcr1837J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

delay in both the cases is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication through a single order. 2. The appeal for AY 2018-19 (ITA No.4402) arises from order dated 16.07.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”) by Ld. Addl./JCIT (Appeal)-1, Mumbai. The appeal for AY 2019-20 arises from

RATIONAL BUSINESS CORPORATION PVT LTD,SONIPAT vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-19(1), DELHI

Appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4402 & 4403/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 बनाम Rational Business Corporation Dcit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle 19(1), C.R. Building, Bahalgarh Chowk, Delhi, Sonepat Road, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Bahalgarh (73), Sonipat. Pan No.Aadcr1837J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

delay in both the cases is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication through a single order. 2. The appeal for AY 2018-19 (ITA No.4402) arises from order dated 16.07.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”) by Ld. Addl./JCIT (Appeal)-1, Mumbai. The appeal for AY 2019-20 arises from

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MODIPON LTD.

36(1)(va) of the Act? (b) Whether the deletion of the 2nd proviso to Section 43B by way of amendment by the Finance Act, 2OO3 is retrospective in nature?" These questions were answered by the Division Bench in the following manner :- "7. Having heard the learned counsel for the Revenue, as well as, the assessee

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. AIMIL Limited

36(1)(va) of the Act? (b) Whether the deletion of the 2nd proviso to Section 43B by way of amendment by the Finance Act, 2003 is retrospective in nature?” 16. These questions were answered by the Division Bench in the 2009:DHC:5671-DB “7. Having heard the learned counsel for the Revenue, as well as, the assessee

NARESH KUMAR,SHANTI NAGAR, MODEL TOWN, PANIPAT, HARYANA, INDIA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD NO. ONE, PANIPAT HARYANA, INDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Pvt. Ltd. (supra) itself explains this position in Para 32 of the Judgment. Such view also draws support from the observations made in recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Khyati Realtors

NARESH KUMAR,SHANTI NAGAR, MODEL TOWN, PANIPAT, HARYANA, INDIA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD ONE, PANIPAT, HARYANA, INDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Pvt. Ltd. (supra) itself explains this position in Para 32 of the Judgment. Such view also draws support from the observations made in recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Khyati Realtors

VINOD KUMAR SHARMA ,DELHI vs. AO WARD 71(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

condonation of delay and mentioned that all the grounds of Appeal remained the same. 2. The the CIT(Appeals) grossly erred in upholding disallowance of Rs.24,53,910 by the AO Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) on the ground that there was delay in deposit of employees contribution under Section 36(1)(va

PRISMA,MORADABAD vs. ITO,WARD-1(1), MORADABAD

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

36(1)(va) by the Finance Act 2021 employer’s contribution to PF and ESI paid on or before the due date of filing of ITR under section 139(1) is allowable under section 43B of the Income Tax Act. No. disallowance is therefore required. 3. That the assessee deposited PF ESI before the due date of filing

KAILASH HOSPITAL & METERNITY ,UTTARPRADESH vs. WARD 1(1)(3), UTTARPARDESH

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

36(1)(va) of the Act? (b) Whether the deletion of the 2nd proviso to Section 43B by way of amendment by the Finance Act, 2003 is retrospective in nature?" 16. These questions were answered by the Division Bench in the following manner :- "7. Having heard the learned counsel for the Revenue, as well as, the assessee

NEELKANTH INFERTILITY AND IVF HOSPITAL,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CC-1, GURGAON

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

36(1)(va) of the Act? (b) Whether the deletion of the 2nd proviso to Section 43B by way of amendment by the Finance Act, 2003 is retrospective in nature?" 16. These questions were answered by the Division Bench in the following manner :- "7. Having heard the learned counsel for the Revenue, as well as, the assessee

BMK BUSINESS HOTELS & RESORTS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

36(1)(va) of the Act? (b) Whether the deletion of the 2nd proviso to Section 43B by way of amendment by the Finance Act, 2003 is retrospective in nature?" 16. These questions were answered by the Division Bench in the following manner :- "7. Having heard the learned counsel for the Revenue, as well as, the assessee

NARANG SCIENTIFIC WORKS,C-255 vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIVIC CENTRE

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

36(1)(va) of the Act? (b) Whether the deletion of the 2nd proviso to Section 43B by way of amendment by the Finance Act, 2003 is retrospective in nature?" 16. These questions were answered by the Division Bench in the following manner :- "7. Having heard the learned counsel for the Revenue, as well as, the assessee