M/S.G.S. ATWAL & CO.(ENGG)(P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

va) to deposit the amounts retained by it or deducted by it from the employee's income, unless the condition that it is deposited on or before the due date, is correct and justified. The non- obstante clause has to be understood in the context of the entire provision of Section 43B which is to ensure timely payment before

BHARGAB ENGINEERING WORKS,HOWRAH vs. PCIT, CENTRAL KOLKATA 2, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 30.03.2023, and the expenditure claimed was required to be disallowed. Therefore, a sum of ₹ 17,03,551/- to be disallowed under section 36(1)(va

RAJA UDYOG (P) LTD.,24-PARGANAS (N) vs. ACIT, CC-4(3), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, I.T.(SS)A. No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.944/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2017-18 Raja Udyog (P) Ltd…..…………….....……………………....………....Appellant Sukchar Girja, 16F, Barrackpore Trunk Road, 24 Parganas (N), W.B – 700115. [Pan: Aaccr0764P] Vs. Acit, Cc-4(3), Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent I.T.(Ss)A. No.43/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Raja Udyog (P) Ltd…..…………….....……………………....………....Appellant Sukchar Girja, 16F, Barrackpore Trunk Road, 24 Parganas (N), W.B – 700115. [Pan: Aaccr0764P] Vs. Acit, Cc-4(3), Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent I.T.(Ss)A. No.44/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Raja Udyog (P) Ltd…..…………….....……………………....………....Appellant Sukchar Girja, 16F, Barrackpore Trunk Road, 24 Parganas (N), W.B – 700115. [Pan: Aaccr0764P] Vs. Acit, Cc-4(3), Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rakesh Kr. Das, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 29, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 30, 2024

section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The assessee will be given benefit of excess amount, if any, disallowed inadvertently. 6. Ground No.2 - Vide Ground No.2, the assessee has agitated the action of the lower authorities in confirming the disallowance made u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of late deposits of employee’s contribution

UCO BANK,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

reassessment had been\ncompleted on 31.12.2017. It was the submission that the decision of the\nHon'ble Supreme Court was on 12.10.2022. It was the submission that\nwhen the reopening was done the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court\nwas not available and thus it could be stated that there is a change of\nopinion which

THE DCIT, CIR-3(2) GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED , GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

36(1)(va) of the Act for delayed payment of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund, (ii) ₹3,58,787/- u/s 40(a)(ia) Page 3 of 45 I.T.A. Nos.: 1582 & 1583/KOL/2024 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Sikkim State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK SIKKIM vs. SIKKIM STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, GANGTOK SIKKIM

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

36(1)(va) of the Act for delayed payment of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund, (ii) ₹3,58,787/- u/s 40(a)(ia) Page 3 of 45 I.T.A. Nos.: 1582 & 1583/KOL/2024 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Sikkim State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. BHAWANI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., HOWRAH

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. The said order has been challenged by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been allowed partly as the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 6,75,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act despite the fact that