KOHINOOR DEVELOPMENTS CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CPC,, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

36(1)(va) of the employees’ contribution towards PF Rs. 6,43,910/- though the same were paid before the due date for filing of return. 2. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend all or any of the above grounds of appeal, if required.” 2. The facts and circumstances and the issues involved in both these appeals

KOHINOOR DEVELOPMENTS CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CPC,, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

36(1)(va) of the employees’ contribution towards PF Rs. 6,43,910/- though the same were paid before the due date for filing of return. 2. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend all or any of the above grounds of appeal, if required.” 2. The facts and circumstances and the issues involved in both these appeals

AJIT ABDULMAJID MAHAT,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Roao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

36(1)(va) as the contribution has been deposited with the respective authority after the due date as provided under the respective law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and inlaw the ld. CIT(A) erred in not accepting the contention of the appellant that such action of the DCIT does not fall within theambit

DATWYLER PHARMA PACKAGING I P LTD,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE, SATARA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

delay filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for disposal on merits 3. The only issue involved in this appeal is the disallowance of employees‟ contribution to Provident Fund as well as ESIC. It is the case of the assessee that as per various decisions of Pune Tribunal it has been held that if the employees‟ contribution

M/S SARGAM RETAILS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CPC , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2022-23

Section 43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee's contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction. 55. In the light of the above reasoning, this court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the approach of the impugned judgment

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2022-23

Section 43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee's contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction. 55. In the light of the above reasoning, this court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the approach of the impugned judgment

SUPREME EQUIPMENTS P LTD,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, , BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकरअपऩलसं. / Ita No. 224/Pun/2021 निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-2020 Supreme Equipments Private Limited B-19, Nice, Midc, Satpur, Nashik. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Cpc, Bengaluru . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 05/09/2022 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 05/09/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Is Assailed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi[For Short “Nfac”] Dt.12/03/2021 Passed U/S 250 Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Dove Out Of An Order Of Intimation Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act By Asstt. Dit, Cpc-Bengaluru [For Short “Cpc”] Dt. 06/07/2020, For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2019-2020. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 6

section 36(1)(va) is prospective in nature. ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 6 Supreme Equipments Private Limited ITA No. 224/PUN/2021AY: 2019-20 5. The present appeal is delayed by 21 days and same is condoned

GTT COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

section 36(1)(va) and 43B as per Finance Act, 2021 are prospective in application i.e. w.e.f. April 1, 2021 (as per CBDT Memorandum Explaining the provisions in the Finance Bill 2021). 3. The appellant craves its right to add to or alter the Grounds of appeal at any time before or during the course of hearing of the case

GALLAGHER SERVICE CENTER LLP,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

section 36(1)(va) and 43B as per Finance Act, 2021 are prospective in application i.e. w.e.f. April 1, 2021 (as per CBDT Memorandum Explaining the provisions in the Finance Bill 2021). 3. The appellant craves its right to add to or alter the Grounds of appeal at any time before or during the course of hearing of the case

SPRINGER NATURE TECHNOLOGY AND PUBLISHING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

36(1)(va) of Rs. 29,602 without assigning any reasons whatsoever. 6. The learned ADIT-CPC has failed to appreciate the fact that the said amount has been reported as paid within the due date specified under the respective ESIC Act under Clause 20(b) of the Tax Audit Report filed by the Appellant. Disallowance of unpaid amounts

SPRINGER NATURE TECHNOLOGY AND PUBLISHING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

36(1)(va) of Rs. 29,602 without assigning any reasons whatsoever. 6. The learned ADIT-CPC has failed to appreciate the fact that the said amount has been reported as paid within the due date specified under the respective ESIC Act under Clause 20(b) of the Tax Audit Report filed by the Appellant. Disallowance of unpaid amounts

SUKIBA MANAGEMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,NASHIK MAHARASHTRA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

condone the said delay and proceed to\ndecide the appeal.\n3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-\n“1. Ground No. 1 :\nOn the facts and in law the AO has erred in disallowing employees\ncontribution to P. F. Rs.18901924 which was paid before the due\ndate of filing the return of income us 139(1

SUN INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

condone the delay of 01 day. 4. The brief facts of the case on hand are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of construction of buildings which is evident from para 4 of the assessment order. Further, it is noted from the assessment order that the assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration

GENERAL INDUSTRIAL CONTROS LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 14.03.2024 for ITA No.38/PUN/2025 [A] Assessment Year 2021-22. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1 The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming tax of appellant at Rs. 2,73,95,728/as against refund of Rs. 29,71,648/- merely due to delay

SHREE PS HR CONSULTANTS P LTD,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Am

36(1)(va) providing that the provisions of section 43B shall not apply for the purpose of determining the due date under this clause w.e.f. 01-04-2021. The effect of this amendment is that if the amount of employees’ contribution towards EPF, ESI, etc. is delayed by an employer beyond the due date under the respective Acts, the disallowance

SHREENATH MHASKOBA SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.305/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shreenath Mhaskoba Sakhar Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. Karkhana Ltd., Survey No.12/2, 2Nd Floor, Meghdoot Building, Behind Bharat Petroleum Pump, Hadpasar, Pune- 411028. Pan : Aahcs3018G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.D. Bhide Revenue By : Shri A. D. Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 02.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-7, Kolkata [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “Being Aggrieved By An Order Passed U/Sec.250 By The Ld. Cit(A)- Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred For Short As The Ld. Cit(A)) Your

36(1)(va) --- Rs.6,40,449/- and (ii) disallowed claim of deduction u/s 801A due to non e-filing of Form 10CCB along with return of income Rs.3,96,40,491/-. 5.2 The ground number 1 is prayer to condone delay in filing of appeal. Intimation u/s 143(1) was passed on 25.06.2020 and received by appellant

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (OSD), CIRCLE -1,, SOLAPUR vs. M/S. LOKMANGAL AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD,, SOLAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & G.D. Padmahshali

delay of 119 days in filing the cross objections is condoned in the larger interest of justice. 12. This leaves us with the Revenue’s third substantive grievance in ITA No.986/PUN/2018 seeking to revive section 36(1)(va

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (OSD), CIRCLE -1,, SOLAPUR vs. M/S. LOKMANGAL AGRO INDUSTRIAL LTD,, SOLAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & G.D. Padmahshali

delay of 119 days in filing the cross objections is condoned in the larger interest of justice. 12. This leaves us with the Revenue’s third substantive grievance in ITA No.986/PUN/2018 seeking to revive section 36(1)(va