BUNDELAS SECURITAS AND CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 59 & 60/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 Bundelas Securities & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. L-38, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 223 Pan : Aaccb6831H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of "the Act" but paid to the (respective funds after the due dates as specified by rules of relevant funds are correctly held as deemed income and, therefore , the disallowance is hereby confirmed as the said late payments are \ not covered under 43B of the Act. Accordingly, these grounds of appeal

SATPAL SINGH SANDHU,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of my aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 04/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Satpal Singh Sandhu 151/2, Ward -1, Sandhu Bhavan, Guru Govind Singh Marg, Heerapur, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Cseps7315E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

condoning the delay of 41 days involved in filing of the present appeal. 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee who is a labour contractor had e-filed his return of income for A.Y.2019-20 on 05.11.2019, declaring an income of Rs.24,12,846/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act, wherein after making

RICHHPAL SINGH TYAGI,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 15 & 16/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Richhpal Singh Tyagi 865, Near Kargil Chowk Sunder Nagar, Raipur (C.G)-492 001 Pan : Admpt5049D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 17/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deepak Tyagi 865, Near Kargil Chowk Sunder Nagar, Raipur (C.G)-492 001 Pan : Ahnpt2650H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-4(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19

condone the delay involved in filing of the present appeal. 6. Controversy involved in the present appeal hinges around the sustainability of the disallowance made by the A.O of the assessee’s A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 claim for deduction of the delayed deposit of employee’s share of contributions towards labour welfare funds, viz. Provident fund (PF) and Employee

RICHHPAL SINGH TYAGI,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 15 & 16/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Richhpal Singh Tyagi 865, Near Kargil Chowk Sunder Nagar, Raipur (C.G)-492 001 Pan : Admpt5049D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 17/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deepak Tyagi 865, Near Kargil Chowk Sunder Nagar, Raipur (C.G)-492 001 Pan : Ahnpt2650H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-4(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19

condone the delay involved in filing of the present appeal. 6. Controversy involved in the present appeal hinges around the sustainability of the disallowance made by the A.O of the assessee’s A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 claim for deduction of the delayed deposit of employee’s share of contributions towards labour welfare funds, viz. Provident fund (PF) and Employee

DEEPAK TYAGI,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 15 & 16/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Richhpal Singh Tyagi 865, Near Kargil Chowk Sunder Nagar, Raipur (C.G)-492 001 Pan : Admpt5049D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 17/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deepak Tyagi 865, Near Kargil Chowk Sunder Nagar, Raipur (C.G)-492 001 Pan : Ahnpt2650H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-4(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19

condone the delay involved in filing of the present appeal. 6. Controversy involved in the present appeal hinges around the sustainability of the disallowance made by the A.O of the assessee’s A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 claim for deduction of the delayed deposit of employee’s share of contributions towards labour welfare funds, viz. Provident fund (PF) and Employee

PRIYANKA TYAGI,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFFICER-2(2), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 15 & 16/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Richhpal Singh Tyagi 865, Near Kargil Chowk Sunder Nagar, Raipur (C.G)-492 001 Pan : Admpt5049D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 17/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deepak Tyagi 865, Near Kargil Chowk Sunder Nagar, Raipur (C.G)-492 001 Pan : Ahnpt2650H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-4(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19

condone the delay involved in filing of the present appeal. 6. Controversy involved in the present appeal hinges around the sustainability of the disallowance made by the A.O of the assessee’s A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 claim for deduction of the delayed deposit of employee’s share of contributions towards labour welfare funds, viz. Provident fund (PF) and Employee

M/S VARSHA CONSTRUCTION,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 5/Rpr/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Varsha Construction, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Second Floor-25, 26, Millenium Plaza, S Tax, Circle-1(1), Central Revenue Raipur-492 001, Chhattisgarh Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, C.G.. Pan: Aaefv 8399 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""थ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Tarannum Verma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2025 : 22.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement

condoning the delay in filing of appeal. 2. The Deputy Comm. Of Income Tax, CPC has been erred in disallowance of Rs.4,64,730/- on account ESIC payment (employee's contribution) made after the due date as specified in relevant act but before the due date of filing of return. 2 M/s Varsha Construction vs ACIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur

ROKADIYA WAHID, DHAMTARI,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 127 & 128/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Rokadiya Wahid C/O. Mohd. Dilawar Rokadia, Mahalaxmi Enclave, Sihawa Road, Dhamtari-493 773 Pan : Acfpw4546A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

36(1)(va) of the Act of Rs.12,84,160/- has been sustained. 4. Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee at the threshold of hearing of the appeal submitted that the present appeal involves a delay of 22 days. It was submitted by him that the delay in filing of the appeal

ROKADIYA WAHID, DHAMTARI,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 127 & 128/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Rokadiya Wahid C/O. Mohd. Dilawar Rokadia, Mahalaxmi Enclave, Sihawa Road, Dhamtari-493 773 Pan : Acfpw4546A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

36(1)(va) of the Act of Rs.12,84,160/- has been sustained. 4. Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee at the threshold of hearing of the appeal submitted that the present appeal involves a delay of 22 days. It was submitted by him that the delay in filing of the appeal

RAJENDRA KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA, DURG,DURG vs. ITO, NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.744/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Rajendra Kumar Shrivastava, Mig-42, Padmanabhpur, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan: Alops3921M

36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act vide Finance Act, 2021 by inserting Explanation 2 was prospective in nature and was applicable only from 01.04.2021 and hence, not applicable in the case of the assessee for A.Y.2020-21 relying on the decision of Pr. CIT Vs. TV Today Network Ltd. (2022) 141 Taxmann.com 275/289 Taxman 132 (Delhi). It was contended

M/S BPS INFRASTRUCTURE, BALODA BAZAR,BALODA BAZAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee firm in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 315/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Bps Infrastructure Village- Raseda, Tehsil-Baloda Bazar, Baloda Bazar-493 332 (C.G.) Pan : Aaofb5038R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

36(1)(va) of the Act, the CIT(Appeals) approved the adjustment made by the DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru u/s. 143(1) of the Act. 4. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal. 5. Shri Ravi Agrawal, Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee at the threshold of hearing

GURMEET SINGH HORA,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 358, 359 & 360/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22)

36(1)(va) is arbitrary and not justified and was not within the scope of sec. 143(1)(a). 3. Disallowance of Rs.8,60,896/- made by CPC on account of delayed payment of employee’s contribution to PF/ESIC is illegal, arbitrary and not justified. Gurmeet Singh Hora vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1) 4. The appellant reserves

GURMEET SINGH HORA,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 358, 359 & 360/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22)

36(1)(va) is arbitrary and not justified and was not within the scope of sec. 143(1)(a). 3. Disallowance of Rs.8,60,896/- made by CPC on account of delayed payment of employee’s contribution to PF/ESIC is illegal, arbitrary and not justified. Gurmeet Singh Hora vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1) 4. The appellant reserves

GURMEET SINGH HORA,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 358, 359 & 360/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22)

36(1)(va) is arbitrary and not justified and was not within the scope of sec. 143(1)(a). 3. Disallowance of Rs.8,60,896/- made by CPC on account of delayed payment of employee’s contribution to PF/ESIC is illegal, arbitrary and not justified. Gurmeet Singh Hora vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1) 4. The appellant reserves

GANESHAN PURUSHOTHAMAN ACHARI,BHILAI, DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 146 To 148/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 To 2019-20 Ganeshan Puroshothaman Achari 116, Friends Arcade, Shastri Nagar, G.E. Road, Supela, Bhilai (C.G.) Pan : Achpa6510E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Cpc, Bengaluru. ……""यथ" / Respondent

36(l)(va). The disallowance made by AO and sustained by Ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary, baseless and not justified. 3. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or modify any of the ground/s of appeal.” 3. At the very outset I find that all the captioned appeals filed by the assesee involves a delay of 11 days

GANESHAN PURUSHOTHAMAN ACHARI,BHILAI, DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 146 To 148/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 To 2019-20 Ganeshan Puroshothaman Achari 116, Friends Arcade, Shastri Nagar, G.E. Road, Supela, Bhilai (C.G.) Pan : Achpa6510E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Cpc, Bengaluru. ……""यथ" / Respondent

36(l)(va). The disallowance made by AO and sustained by Ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary, baseless and not justified. 3. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or modify any of the ground/s of appeal.” 3. At the very outset I find that all the captioned appeals filed by the assesee involves a delay of 11 days

GANESHAN PURUSHOTHAMAN ACHARI,BHILAI, DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 146 To 148/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 To 2019-20 Ganeshan Puroshothaman Achari 116, Friends Arcade, Shastri Nagar, G.E. Road, Supela, Bhilai (C.G.) Pan : Achpa6510E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Cpc, Bengaluru. ……""यथ" / Respondent

36(l)(va). The disallowance made by AO and sustained by Ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary, baseless and not justified. 3. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or modify any of the ground/s of appeal.” 3. At the very outset I find that all the captioned appeals filed by the assesee involves a delay of 11 days