SUCH MEDIA PUBLICATION P LTD ,CIT (A) NFAC DELHI vs. NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. While the assessee does not have any dispute against applicability of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chekmate (supra) wherein the such disallowance

SHRI ARUN KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA,INDORE vs. ASSTT, DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Shri Arun Kumar Adit, Cpc, Shrivastava, Bangalore 9, Shakti Nagar, Vs. Kanadia Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aopps 9595 H Assessee By Shri Soumya Bomb, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2023

2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va). In fact, it falls under the provision of section 36(1)(iv) read with section 43B, the effect of which is such that if the assessee makes payment upto due date u/s 139(1) for filing of return, the deduction is very allowable and no disallowance

M/S DAULATARAM ENGINEERING SERVICES P.LTD,MANDIDEEP vs. THE ADIT/CPC , BANGALORE

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

24)(x) of the Act. In view of such a confession, Ground No. 1 and 2 do not have any merit and are dismissed. Ground No. 3: Page 2 of 12 Daulataram Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. I.T.A. No. 244/Ind/2023 Assessment Year -2019-20 4. This is a legal ground in which the assessee claims that the AO had no authority

KWALITY MOTEL SHIRAZ,BHOPAL vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEBER, SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTNT MEMBER Kwality Motel Shiraz 1, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal-462021

2(24)(x) which is held in trust by assessee-employer, thus, said marked difference was to be borne while interpreting obligation of assessee- employer under section 43B of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme held that the non obstante clause under section 43B could not apply in case of amounts which were held in trust as was case

M/S MODERN LABORATARIES PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Modern Laboratories V. The Deputy 45-D2, Sanwer Road, Commissioner Of Income Indore Tax, Cpc, Bangalore. Pan-Aacfm 5920 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Respondent By: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.04.2023

disallowed under section 43B or under section 36(1)(va). In order to provide certainty, the revenue has made both the sections i.e. Sec 36(1)(va) and Sec.43B of the I.T. Act, 1961 independent of each other and has proposed in the Memorandum to Finance Bill 2021 to -(1) amend clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section

PRAVEEN MADHUARRAO SATWASKER,INDORE vs. THE ITO 1(2), INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniita No.339 & 340/Ind/2022 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Praveen Madhukarrao V. The Deputy Satwaskar Commissioner Of Income 1159, Sudama Nagar Tax, Cpc, Bangalore. Indore Pan-Ajsps7468M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Respondent By: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 .04.2023

disallowed under section 43B or under section 36(1)(va). In order to provide certainty, the revenue has made both the sections i.e. Sec 36(1)(va) and Sec.43B of the I.T. Act, 1961 independent of each other and has proposed in the Memorandum to Finance Bill 2021 to -(1) amend clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section

PRAVEEN MADHUARRAO SATWASKER,INDORE vs. THE ITO 1(2), INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniita No.339 & 340/Ind/2022 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Praveen Madhukarrao V. The Deputy Satwaskar Commissioner Of Income 1159, Sudama Nagar Tax, Cpc, Bangalore. Indore Pan-Ajsps7468M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Respondent By: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 .04.2023

disallowed under section 43B or under section 36(1)(va). In order to provide certainty, the revenue has made both the sections i.e. Sec 36(1)(va) and Sec.43B of the I.T. Act, 1961 independent of each other and has proposed in the Memorandum to Finance Bill 2021 to -(1) amend clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section

ROSHAN HOSPITAL,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-5(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Roshan Hospital, Dcit/Acit, 7-A-B, Govind Garden, 5(1), Bhopal बनाम/ Raisen Road, Govindpura, Vs. Bhopal-462023 (Appellant /Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aasfr 4278 B Assessee By Ms. Shreya Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri. Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 06.04.2023

section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act of Rs. 3,92,101/-. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the CIT(A) but could not succeed. 4. Before the Tribunal, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that only few payments of EPF and ESIC related to employees contribution have been

M/S CANDOR TEXTILES P LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowed by the Assessing Officer. Section 36(1)(va) of the Act has stated that any sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of the sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of Section 2

SHRI VIJENDRA KUMAR TIWARI ,INDORE vs. THE CIT NFAC , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowed by the Assessing Officer. Section 36(1)(va) of the Act has stated that any sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of the sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of Section 2

M/S KOHINOOR ELASTICS P LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowed by the Assessing Officer. Section 36(1)(va) of the Act has stated that any sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of the sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of Section 2

PRASHANTI ENGINEERING WORKS P LTD,PITHAMPUR vs. THE ASST.DCIT ,CPC, BANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Under Section 139(1).

2(24)(x) which is held in trust by assessee-employer, thus, said marked difference was to be borne while interpreting obligation of assessee- employer under section 43B of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme held that the non obstante clause under section 43B could not apply in case of amounts which were held in trust as was case

JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK MYDT,SEHORE, MP vs. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2014-15 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi / Bank Mydt, Acit-3(1), Bhopal बनाम/ Sehore, M.P. Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaalj0022F Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2026

disallowance invoking section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va). 14. Presently, the assessee is making a limited claim that

SHYAM SUNDER,BHOPAL vs. THE CIT(A) NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assesse is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoshyam Sunder Trivedi Ito1(4) Opp.-1 Vashundra State Bank Bhopal Vs. Colony Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Actpt 3280G Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.11.2023

disallowance of belated payment of PF & ESIC. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee despite repeated notices sent for last three dates. The notices sent through registered post have been received back with the postal remarks “addressee is not found at the given address”. Accordingly the bench proposes to hear and disposed of this appeal ex-parte

COMPUTRONICS SYSTEMS (INDIA)P LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT CPC /ACIT1(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanicomputronics Systems (India) Acit-1(1), Aayakar Bhawan Private Limited, Indore, Madhyapradesh Plant No.91, Schemeno.53, Pin 452001 Vs. Ratnalok Colony Near Rasoma Square, Indore, M.P -452001 (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaaji0159C Assesseeby Shri Apurva Mehta, Ca, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Acit-Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.05.2023

2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts – the employer’s liability is to be paid

THE ADIT CPC , BENGALURU vs. SUNDERLAL MOOLCHAND JAIN, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) M/S Sunderlal Moolchand Adit, Cpc, Jain Tobacconist Private Bangalore Limited, Vs. 31, Kacchi Mohalla, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaecs 7779 P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2023

2(24)(x) which is held in trust by assessee-employer, Sunderlal Moolchand Jain Page 6 of 7 thus, said marked difference was to be borne while interpreting obligation of assessee-employer under section 43B of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme held that the non obstante clause under section 43B could not apply in case of amounts which were

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ITO-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts - the employer's liability is to be paid

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL. CIT-RANGE-3, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts - the employer's liability is to be paid