22 results for “section 68”+ Section 36(1)(va)clear
Sorted by relevance
Key Topics
Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes
Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.11/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Goneshbari Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. ………....….........…..........….…… Appellant 4/1, Middleton Street, Shakespear Sarani, Kolkata-700071. [Pan: Aabcg7880Q] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, Guwahati….………….…..…...…..…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sumeet Kumar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ps Thuingaleng, Acit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 20, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.10.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Guwahati [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Dated 31-10-2022 Passed By The Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed.
68,446/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of delay in deposit of PF/ ESI. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate that the PF/ ESI contributions were duly deposited before the due date of filing of income tax return for the impugned assessment year