ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GUNTUBOLU UMA SAI PRASAD, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act, leading to disallowance of this sum to the extent not paid on or before the due date stipulated in the respective PF and ESI Act.” Further, this Bench of the ITAT, Visakhapatnam (Single Member Bench) on identical circumstances discussed the issue ie., whether the CPC can make adjustments based

GUNTUBOLU UMA SAI PRASAD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act, leading to disallowance of this sum to the extent not paid on or before the due date stipulated in the respective PF and ESI Act.” Further, this Bench of the ITAT, Visakhapatnam (Single Member Bench) on identical circumstances discussed the issue ie., whether the CPC can make adjustments based

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GUNTUBOLU UMA SAI PRASAD, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act, leading to disallowance of this sum to the extent not paid on or before the due date stipulated in the respective PF and ESI Act.” Further, this Bench of the ITAT, Visakhapatnam (Single Member Bench) on identical circumstances discussed the issue ie., whether the CPC can make adjustments based

THE ETIKOPPAKA COOP AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R L Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Balakrishnan, Hon'Ble

disallowance could be made in view of the provisions of Section 43B as amended by Finance Act, 2003. 6. In the present case, the assessee had remitted the employees contribution beyond the due date for payment, but within the due date for filing the return of income. Hence, following the above said decisions, we find no reason to differ with

SIONC PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.40/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Sionc Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of D.No.43-11-56, Subbalakshminagar Income Railway New Colony Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aalcs7973C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

17,776/- (PF of Rs.34,33,167/- and ESI of Rs.8,84,589/-) to the returned income as the assessee deposited the PF / ESI Employees Contribution after the due date of the respective Acts i.e. PF Act and ESI Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the CPC, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT

THE CHODAVARAM CO-OPERATIVE SUGARS LIMITED,CHODAVARAM vs. THE DY.CIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

17 December 2015, it is clearly mentioned that this circular does not apply to claim of deduction relating to employee’s contribution to welfare funds which are governed by section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act. The amendment has been also brought in the recent finance Act that the delayed payment cannot be allowed u/sec. 43B. The report

THE CHODAVARAM CO-OPERATIVE SUGARS LIMITED,CHODAVARAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2), VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

17 December 2015, it is clearly mentioned that this circular does not apply to claim of deduction relating to employee’s contribution to welfare funds which are governed by section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act. The amendment has been also brought in the recent finance Act that the delayed payment cannot be allowed u/sec. 43B. The report

SURESH DHARNIA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

Bench: Us :

Section 36(1)(va) of the Act the assessee's claim for deduction of the delayed deposit of the employee's share of contribution od EPF/ESI amounting to Rs. 62,02,070/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), but without success on the issue in hand i.e., the sustainability of the disallowance

SURESH DHARNIA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

Bench: Us :

Section 36(1)(va) of the Act the assessee's claim for deduction of the delayed deposit of the employee's share of contribution od EPF/ESI amounting to Rs. 62,02,070/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), but without success on the issue in hand i.e., the sustainability of the disallowance

AMARAVATHI POWER ASSOCIATES,VISAKHAPATANAM vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATANAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.104/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Amaravathi Power Associates Vs. Dcit/Acit D.No.36-91-30, Ravindra Nagar Circle-3(1) Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aanfa4444M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

17,660/-. However, the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) had processed the return of income u/s 143(1) vide it’s order dated 26.02.2020 and disallowed an amount of Rs.14,77,226/- u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) towards delayed remittance of employees contribution towards EPF and ESI. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the CPC, the assessee preferred

EISAI PHARMACEUTICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R L Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Balakrishnan, Hon'Ble

17 21/02/2017 28/02/2017 Total 37248 The AO therefore disallowed the employees contribution towards PF aggregating to Rs. 13,58,916/- and employees contribution towards ESI aggregating to Rs. 37,248/- stating that the payments under the respective Acts were made with a delay, hence, disallowance is attracted as per the provisions of section 36(1)(va

RAJAM POLYPACKS LIMITED,RAJAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SRIKAKULAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.258/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Rajam Polypacks Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer Ponduru Road Ward-2 Rajam Srikakulam [Pan : Aabcr0489G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Ya Rao, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri On Hari Prasad Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/ 1036317185(1) Dated 12.10.2021 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018- 19. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1. The Order Passed By Learned Commissioner (Appeals), Dated 12.10.2021 Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.56,448/- & Rs.2,53,947/- By Invoking Provisions Of Sec.36(1A) R.W.S. 43(B) Of I.T.Act Is Illegal & Unjust After Relying On The Amendment Brought By Finance Act, 2021 To Sec.36(5A) R.W.S. (43B).

17,831/-, the details of which are given below : a. Disallowance of penalty levied for default 1,08,461 under PF Act b. Delay in remittance PF/ESI etc (As per tax 56,448 audit report 3,10,995-less disallowance considered in total income statement Rs.2,53,947 c. Income under the head other sources 2,957 representing deviation

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 2(1), GUNTUR vs. TULASI SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.169/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Tulasi Seeds Private Limited 3Rd Floor, Standard House, Beside Sbi Door No. 6-4-6, Tulasi House Nagarampalem, Guntur – 522004 4/5 Arundelpet, Guntur Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan : Aaact8054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act were issued and duly served on the assessee. In response to the notice’s, assessee furnished various information called for from time to time. After examining the submissions, the Ld. Assessing Officer framed the assessment by making the following additions: - i. Rs. 31,17,823/- was added u/s. 36(1)(va

TEEJAY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DC/AC 4(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

va) of the Act. The Ld. AO accordingly passed draft assessment order on 29/11/2019. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore (Ld. DRP). The Ld. Authorized Representative made various submissions before the Ld. DRP 4 with respect to the comparables selected by the Ld. Transfer