BABA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ,DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assesses is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2970/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Commissioner Of Baba Hotels Pvt. Ltd Income Tax (Appeals) Mumbai बिधम/ Delhi. A-101, Bhaveshwar Arcade, Vs. National Faceless Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar(W), Appeal Centre, New Mumbai 400086 Delhi स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccb9563C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Ms. Anita Thakur अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Minal Kamble Sr.Dr. सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 31.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 31.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 03.10.2022, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Ay 2018-19 In Relation To The Adjustment In The Intimation U/S 143(1).

68,798/- has been made u/s 36(1)(va) in the rectification order u/s 154. The details of payments made have been given at page 6 & 7 of the appellate order. The Ld. CIT (A) after referring to the various decisions cited by the Assessee has decided this issue against the Assessee. However, the Ld.CIT(A) has also dismissed

DUCK CREEK TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LLP,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- CIRCLE 26 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

68,05,543 without even any mentioning the clause of section 143(1) wherein the disallowance is alleged to fall while the Appellant contends that the disallowance is outside the scope of that section. 3. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in giving overriding effect to the procedural provision of section 143(1) disregarding the substantive

VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAIQQQ vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT NFAC CETNRE ITO, MINISTRY OF FINANCE DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partially allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

68 2. Disallowance of finance cost under section 37(1) Rs. 31,97,466/- 3. Disallowance of installation support service charges Rs. 1,43,72,205/- and warranty services 4. Addition towards recovery of warranty support Rs. 12,81,24,990/- services charges from AE 5. Disallowance of warranty support charges under Rs. 3,22,33,056/-. section

MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

68,96,601) (in row no 24 of clause 20(b)) and a payment of Rs. 1,53,50,545 after the due date under the EPF Act. The aggregate of these (i.e. Rs. 3,07,01,090) is disallowed under section 36(1)(va

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6663/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) 2. Ita No. 6701/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) 3. Ita No. 6702/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. Ita No. 6703/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2023-24) Aditya Birla Sun Life Dcitcircle-6(1)(1), Amc Limited, Room No. 502, 5Th 17Th Floor, One World Vs. Floor, Aayakar Centre Tower-1, Jupiter Bhavan, M. K. Mill Compount, 841, Road, Churchgate, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Delisle Road, S.O. Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb6134D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ronak Doshi, Shri Shrey Agrawal & Shri Aadish Jain, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2026

36(1)(va) of the Act. 67. The ld. CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s grounds and upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) recorded that:  In the assessment order under section 143(3), no fresh addition had been made and the Assessing Officer had merely adopted the income as determined under section

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MAHARASHTRA

36(1)(va) of the Act. 67. The ld. CIT(A) rejected the assessee's grounds and upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) recorded that: • In the assessment order under section 143(3), no fresh addition had been made and the Assessing Officer had merely adopted the income as determined under section

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CIRCLE 6 (1)(1), MAHARASHTRA

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

36(1)(va) of the Act. 67. The ld. CIT(A) rejected the assessee's grounds and upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) recorded that: • In the assessment order under section 143(3), no fresh addition had been made and the Assessing Officer had merely adopted the income as determined under section

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MAHARASHTRA

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

36(1)(va) of the Act. 67. The ld. CIT(A) rejected the assessee's grounds and upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) recorded that: • In the assessment order under section 143(3), no fresh addition had been made and the Assessing Officer had merely adopted the income as determined under section

FORCEPOINT SOFTWARE CONSULTING INDIA PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailforcepoint Software Vs. Assistant Director Of Consulting India Pvt. Income Tax, Cpc Ltd., Level 2, Kalpataru Bangalore Synergy Opp. Grand Karnataka 560500 Hyatt, Santacruz (East) Mumbai- 400055 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacw6672P Appellant .. Respondent

68,84,190/- as against the returned income of Rs.8,53,93,350/- without any proper basis and appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the NFAC has erred in confirming the disallowance made by the AO CPC under section 36(1)(va

EXCELLENT PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT, MUMBAI

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

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Act. Similarly, In Ay 2019-20 On Disallowance Of Rs. 12,07,310/- Was Made U/S 36(1)(Va) In The Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Assessee Has Relied Upon The Various Judgements Of The Tribunal As Well As Hon’Ble Bombay High Court, Wherein It Has Been Held That, If Employee’S Contribution To Pf/Esic Has Been Made Beyond The Due Date Another Prescribed That On Before The Due Date Of Filling Of Return Of Income Is Allowed U/S 143(3) Of The Act.

36(1)(va) and 43B, and had come to the conclusion that if the deposit has been made after the due date prescribed under respective Acts, the same is not allowable. It is a trite law that once the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided and settled the issue, then it becomes the law of the land

EXCELLENT PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Act. Similarly, In Ay 2019-20 On Disallowance Of Rs. 12,07,310/- Was Made U/S 36(1)(Va) In The Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Assessee Has Relied Upon The Various Judgements Of The Tribunal As Well As Hon’Ble Bombay High Court, Wherein It Has Been Held That, If Employee’S Contribution To Pf/Esic Has Been Made Beyond The Due Date Another Prescribed That On Before The Due Date Of Filling Of Return Of Income Is Allowed U/S 143(3) Of The Act.

36(1)(va) and 43B, and had come to the conclusion that if the deposit has been made after the due date prescribed under respective Acts, the same is not allowable. It is a trite law that once the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided and settled the issue, then it becomes the law of the land

DIEU CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC,, BANGLORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

36(1)(va) and 43B, and had come to the conclusion that if the deposit has been made after the due date prescribed under respective Acts, the same is not allowable. It is a trite law that once the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided and settled the issue, then it becomes the law of the land

M/S. SCANTECH LASER PVT. LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIR 15(3) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing M/S. Scantech Laser Pvt. Ltd Of Return U/S.139(1). In Both The Years Prima Facie Adjustments Have Been Made U/S.143(1) Disallowing The Payment Of Employees Pf & Esic U/S. 36(1)(Va) On The Ground That Same Has Been Paid After Due Date Prescribed Of The Respective Acts.

36(1)(va) and 43B, and had come to the conclusion that if the deposit has been made after the due date prescribed under respective Acts, the same is not allowable. It is a trite law that once the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided and settled the issue, then it becomes the law of the land

M/S. SCANTECH LASER PVT. LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIR 15(3) (2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing M/S. Scantech Laser Pvt. Ltd Of Return U/S.139(1). In Both The Years Prima Facie Adjustments Have Been Made U/S.143(1) Disallowing The Payment Of Employees Pf & Esic U/S. 36(1)(Va) On The Ground That Same Has Been Paid After Due Date Prescribed Of The Respective Acts.

36(1)(va) and 43B, and had come to the conclusion that if the deposit has been made after the due date prescribed under respective Acts, the same is not allowable. It is a trite law that once the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided and settled the issue, then it becomes the law of the land

GLITCH MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed

68,083.\nWithout prejudice, disallowance of section 36(1)(va) of the Act of\nRs.9,24,959 on account

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

36(1)(va)) was maintained - and continues to be maintained. On the other hand, section 43B covers all deductions that are permissible as expenditures, or out-goings forming part of the assessees' liability. These include liabilities such as tax liability, cess duties etc. or interest liability having regard to the terms of the contract. Thus, timely payment of these

HBN NETWORK PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

68,752. While filing the return of income, the assessee itself made the disallowance of Rs. 10,94,630 under section 36(1)(va

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. ADDL. CIT RANGE 6(3),

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse and revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blegrasim Industries Limited V. Addl. Cit, Range 6(3) Corporate Finance Division 5Th Floor, Room No. 505 Aditya Birla Centre “A” Wing Aayakar Bhavan 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai Mumbai-400025 Pan: Aaacg4464B Appellant Respondent Dy. Cit, Range 6(3), V. Grasim Industries Limited, 5Th Floor, Room No. 505, Corporate Finance Division, Aayakar Bhavan, Aditya Birla Centre, “A” Wing, Mumbai-20. 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg Worli, Mumbai-400025 Pan: Aaacg4464B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Raj & Shri Vijay Kumar Menon

36(1)(va), as the case may be, and the additions made by invoking these provisions are hereby deleted.” 79. Respectfully following the above decision, on similar facts as the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court held that provisions of section 43B should be construed in a liberal way keeping in view the Legislative intention so that absurdity

DIAMOUR JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED,ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI vs. CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22

Section 36(1)(va), the same will not be allowable as a deduction. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the facts and referred to the documentary evidences placed on record as extracted above. She referred to circular issued by Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation dated 15.05.2020 vide circular