ARUN WAMAN KOLI,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALURE

The appeals are dismissed

condone the delay of 119 days in filing the appeal in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. vs. Katiji and Ors.(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), and proceed to examine/adjudicate the same on merits. The Appellant has raised following grounds of appeal: 3. “1

ODEX INDIA SOLUTIONS P LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), NFAC , DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

delay of one day in filing appeal is condoned as the same was caused on account of the Directors of the Assessee-Company not being available to execute the appeal at the relevant time. The solitary issue raised by the Assessee in all the appeals is 2. whether at the time of processing of return of income under Section

M/S. P.A.ZAVERI,MUMBAI vs. ADIT , CPC, BEGALURU

The appeals are dismissed

delay of one day in filing appeal is condoned as the same was caused on account of the Directors of the Assessee-Company not being available to execute the appeal at the relevant time. The solitary issue raised by the Assessee in all the appeals is 2. whether at the time of processing of return of income under Section

PRADMAN ENGINEERING SERVICES P LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), NFAC, DELHI, MUMBAI

The appeals are dismissed

delay of one day in filing appeal is condoned as the same was caused on account of the Directors of the Assessee-Company not being available to execute the appeal at the relevant time. The solitary issue raised by the Assessee in all the appeals is 2. whether at the time of processing of return of income under Section

PRAGATI FASHIONS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DYCTI (CPC), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalepragati Fashions P Ltd., Vs. Dycti (Cpc) F.P.No. 455, Shree 1 St Floor, Prestige Sadguru Heights, Alpha, Bhavani Shankar Road, Beratenagrahara, Dadar (W) Hosur Road, Uttahalli Mumbai-400028. Hobli,Bangalore- 560100 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp1730H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Girish Dave.Sr.Counsel Respondent By : Shri. S.G. Menon.Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

36(1)(va) of the Act? Pragati Fashions P Ltd, Mumbai. (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

M/S. LAVINO KAPUR COTTONS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(2) (1) , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2102 & 2103/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Dcit Cir-3(2)(1), M/S Lavino Kapur Cottons Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Maharshi Karve Road, 121/122, Mittal Chambers, Vs. Churchgate, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacl0824C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Surinder Mehra, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mehul Jain, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 02.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 10.09.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, In Relation To Adjustment Made U/S 143(1) For The Ay 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2

delay in filing the appeals and there is a reasonable cause, therefore appeal of the assessee is condoned. 4. The ground taken before us is that, Ld. First Appellate Authority has erred in law and on facts in holding addition u/s 3 I.T.A. No. 2102 & 2103/Mum/2021 M/S Lavino Kapur Cottons Pvt. Ltd 36(1)(va) on account of late deposit

MARKOLINES INFRA PVT LTD.,BELAPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE-15(1)(1), MUMBAI

delay of four days\nin filing the cross-objection is condoned.\n7.\nThe primary contention of the assessee is that the impugned\ndisallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act was made vide intimation issued u/s\n143(1) of the Act without giving prior intimation to the assessee about the\naforesaid adjustment and therefore the opportunity of raising objection against

ACIT-15(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S MARKOLINES INFRA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

delay of four days\nin filing the cross-objection is condoned.\n7.\nThe primary contention of the assessee is that the impugned\ndisallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act was made vide intimation issued u/s\n143(1) of the Act without giving prior intimation to the assessee about the\naforesaid adjustment and therefore the opportunity of raising objection against

MARKOLINES INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE 15(1)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2020-

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Gagan Goyaland

delay of four days in filing the cross-objection is condoned. 7. The primary contention of the assessee is that the impugned disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act was made vide intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act without giving prior intimation to the assessee about the aforesaid adjustment and therefore the opportunity of raising objection against

NEWAGE FIRE PROTECTION INDUSTRIES PVT .LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A) NFAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2018-19

section 36(1) (va) and 438 of the act by the Finance Act 2021 by inserting explanation 2 and explanation 5 to the respective provisions are prospective in application with effect from 01.04.2021 & will not be applicable to the assessment year 2018-19. 3. Your Honour is requested to condone the delay

AMSAL CHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankaramsal Chem Pvt. Limited V/S. Principal Commissioner Of 4G, Kakkad House, 4Th Floor, बनाम Income Tax(Pcit),Mumbai-4, Barrack Road, Marine Lines, Room # 629,Ayakar Bhawan, Mumbai - 400 020, Maharishi Karve Road, Maharashtra Mumbai - 400 020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaca3281G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

36(1) (va) of the Act and needed to be disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee u/s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. He further observed that the assessment order was passed by the AO without making enquiry or verification of the issue, which rendered the assessment order erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial

CAPACITE INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act, a deduction would not be available to the taxpayer. 6.2.2 Moreover, while passing assessment order u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) dated 27.07.2021, the AO also initiated penalty on disallowance made of employees contribution towards PF and ESIC. Further, in view of the decision of CIT(A)-47, Mumbai on this issue

CAPACITE INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2) MUMBAI , MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act, a deduction would not be available to the taxpayer. 6.2.2 Moreover, while passing assessment order u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) dated 27.07.2021, the AO also initiated penalty on disallowance made of employees contribution towards PF and ESIC. Further, in view of the decision of CIT(A)-47, Mumbai on this issue

ASST CIT RG 10(3)(2), THANE vs. PANTALOON INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. The AO thereby framed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. 4. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeals who has partly allowed the same by restricting the disallowance to the tune of Rs64857678/- and Rs.58636230

PIL INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. The AO thereby framed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. 4. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeals who has partly allowed the same by restricting the disallowance to the tune of Rs64857678/- and Rs.58636230

ASST CIT 10(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. PANTALOON INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. The AO thereby framed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. 4. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeals who has partly allowed the same by restricting the disallowance to the tune of Rs64857678/- and Rs.58636230

MALGUDI FOODS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CPC, BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhmalgudi Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cpc, Bangalore 8, Kamala Bhavan 560100 Sharma, Industrial Estates Walbhat Road Ram Mandir (E) 400063 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaecm8352L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : B.K. Bagchi Date Of Hearing 13.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O. U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For A.Y. 2019-20. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Nfac Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made Of Rs. 27,62,936/Being Payment Of Pf & Esic Dues W/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act Considering The Same As Not Deposited On Time Ignoring The Fact That The Delay Was Marginal & Payment Was Made Before Filing The Return.

36(1)(va) of the Act considering the same as not deposited on time ignoring the fact that the delay was marginal and payment was made before filing the return. ITA No. 2309/Mum/2021 A.Y.2019-20 2 Malgudi Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CPC, Bangalore 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO failed to appreciate

SAMSONITE SOUTH ASIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

36(1)(Va) of the Act for late payment of Provident Fund. It is the case of the assessee that out of six payments, four payments were done very next day of official holiday/s of the Central Government, therefore, there is no delay in depositing the same. For the purpose of examination, and for the sake of convenience, the details

MITHALAL BHAWARLAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD - 19(2)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

36(1)(Va) of the Act for late payment of Provident Fund. It is the case of the assessee that out of six payments, four payments were done very next day of official holiday/s of the Central Government, therefore, there is no delay in depositing the same. For the purpose of examination, and for the sake of convenience, the details