Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: ss.29, 30, 31, 32

Section 36(1)(va) falls under section 36 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 29 (Deductions related to employee welfare), section 30 (Deduction on certain premium), section 31 (Deduction for bad debt and provision for bad and doubtful debt) and section 32 (Other deductions) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 29 of the 2025 ActRead section 30 of the 2025 ActRead section 31 of the 2025 ActRead section 32 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 36(1)(va) is CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. (321 ITR 508), cited in 1,629 of the 6,054 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 36(1)(va)

CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.
321 ITR 508 · 2010 · High Court
1,629
citing judgments

Employee contributions to PF and ESIC, deposited beyond the due date under the respective Acts but within the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1), are allowable deductions under Section 36(1)(va). Such disallowance cannot be made during processing under Section 143(1).

Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
143 Taxmann.com 178 · 2022 · Supreme Court
1,392
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI deposited by an employer beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective special Acts are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such disallowance can be made during processing under section 143(1).

CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd.
319 ITR 306 · 2009 · Supreme Court
1,344
citing judgments

A proviso inserted into a section to remedy unintended consequences, make the section workable, or supply an obvious omission must be read retrospectively in operation to give effect to the section as a whole.

CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation
366 ITR 170 · 2014 · High Court
1,158
citing judgments

Employees' contributions to welfare funds, such as provident fund, are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) if deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the respective welfare statutes, even by a single day. Such delayed deposits are not cured even if made before the income-tax return filing due date.

279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises
298 ITR 141 · 2008 · High Court
706
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund or ESI, even if deposited after the due date specified in the respective welfare statutes, are allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) if paid before the due date for filing the income-tax return. This judgment aligns the treatment of employee contributions with employer contributions under Section 43B.

CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd.
368 ITR 749 · 2014 · High Court
609
citing judgments

Deduction for employees' contributions to PF and ESIC is allowable under Section 43B if paid before the due date for filing the return under Section 139(1); similarly, delayed deposits of employers' contributions to ESIC and PF are also allowable.

CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
43 Taxmann.com 411 · 2014 · High Court
524
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund, ESI, and other welfare funds, if deposited by the due date for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), are allowable as a deduction and cannot be disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) or Section 43B, even if deposited after the due date prescribed by the respective welfare Acts.

Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
366 ITR 408 · 2014 · High Court
519
citing judgments

An employer's delayed remittance of employees' contributions to provident fund (PF) or Employees' State Insurance (ESI) is deductible if the payment is made before the due date for filing the income tax return under section 139(1), applying the provisions of section 43B and notwithstanding section 36(1)(va).

CIT v. Bharat Hotels Ltd.
410 ITR 417 · 2019 · High Court
486
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI, if paid beyond the due date prescribed by the respective welfare fund statutes, are not allowed as a deduction under the Income Tax Act.

CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd.
350 ITR 327 · 2013 · High Court
425
citing judgments

Deduction for employee contributions to EPF/ESI is allowable under section 43B if paid before the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1), irrespective of the due dates under the respective welfare fund statutes.

Judgments on Section 36(1)(va)

Padmavati Decor Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Begaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2258/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2258/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19) Padmavati Décor Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit-Cpc 606, 6Th Floor, Vileparle 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha Vs. Shree Siddhivinay Sra Cha No.48/148/2, Shraddhananad Road, Vile Beratenaagrahara Begur, Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Hosur Road, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangaluru. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcp5034F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mani Jain Revenue By: Shri Sanyam Joshi (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) In National Faceless Appeal [Nfac], Delhi Dated 08.11.2021 For The Assessment Year 2018- 19. 2. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao(Cpc) Making Disallowance Under The Head Of Pf/ Esi For Delayed Remittance Of Pf/Esi U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) & Section 43B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That The Issue Involved In This Case Is No Longer Res-Integra & Drew Our Attention To The Decision Of Co- Ordinate Bench Of This Tribunal On This Issue In The Case Of Rajesh Kumar Mundhra, Kolkata Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalure On 6Th

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Sanyam Joshi (Sr. AR)
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Peacefort Chem India Engg. Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2127/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2127/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19) Peacefort Chem India Engg. बिधम/ Dcit-Cpc, Bangalore. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 104, Sumerkendra, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400018. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcp7161P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mandar Vaidya Revenue By: Shri Jagdish Jangid (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 30.07.2021 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao(Cpc) Making Disallowance Under The Head Of Pf/ Esi For Delayed Remittance Of Pf/Esi U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) & Section 43B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That The Issue Involved In This Case Is No Longer Res-Integra & Drew Our Attention To The Decision Of Co- Ordinate Bench Of This Tribunal On This Issue In The Case Of Rajesh Kumar Mundhra, Kolkata Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalure On 6Th

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Jangid (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Power Weave Software Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bangalore, Bangslore

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

ITA 2126/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2126/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19) Power Weave Software बिधम/ Assistant Director Of Services Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Cpc Vs. Power Weave House, Plot Bangalore. No.27, Eleven Building, Road No.11, Near Tunga Hotel, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcp9690D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jitendra Singh Revenue By: Shri Jagdish Jangid (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 29.09.2021 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao(Cpc) Making Disallowance Under The Head Of Pf/ Esi For Delayed Remittance Of Pf/Esi U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) & Section 43B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That The Issue Involved In This Case Is No Longer Res-Integra & Drew Our Attention To The Decision Of Co- Ordinate Bench Of This Tribunal On This Issue In The Case Of Rajesh Kumar Mundhra, Kolkata Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalure On 6Th

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Jangid (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Oam Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst. Dir, CPC, Bengalurl

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2060/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2060/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2019-20) Oam Industries (India) Pvt. बिधम/ Asst. Director, Cpc Ltd. Centralized Processing Vs. 601, Indira Apartment, Centre, Income Tax Tejpal Scheme Road, Vile Department, Bengaluru- Parle, East, Mumbai- 560500, Karnataka. 400057. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco8897J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hitesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Jagdish Jangid (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 09.09.2021 For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao(Cpc) Making Disallowance Under The Head Of Pf/ Esi For Delayed Remittance Of Pf/Esi U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) & Section 43B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That The Issue Involved In This Case Is No Longer Res-Integra & Drew Our Attention To The Decision Of Co- Ordinate Bench Of This Tribunal On This Issue In The Case Of Rajesh Kumar Mundhra, Kolkata Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalure On 6Th

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Jangid (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Geetee Travels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1778/MUM/2021[AY 2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm The Commissioner Of Income Geetee Travels Private Limited Tax (Appeals) Shop No.1, Satellite Bldg, Opp National Faceless Appeal Mistry, Complex Om Nagar, Vs. Centre, Andheri, Mumbai-400 099 Delhi (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaccg7462R Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Sonia Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2022

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Shah, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Sonia Kumar, DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

M/S. Sycone Cpmc Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 260/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year:2018-19 M/S. Sycone Cpmc Private Limited, No.36, 20Th Main, 2Nd Block, Rajajinagar, Dcit, Cpc, Vs. Bengaluru – 560 010. Bengaluru. Pan No : Aaics 3458 H Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, Ca Respondent By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 31.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2022 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 25/02/2022 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-11, Bangalore & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Solitary Issue Urged In This Appeal Relates To Disallowance Of Rs.8,58,090/-, Being Employees Contribution To Provident Fund & Esi, Made U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short].

For Appellant: Shri. Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Ashirwad Carbonics (India) Private Limtied, New Delhi vs. Circle-3(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1721/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 139(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Aditya Flexipack LLP, Kanpur vs. The Assessing Officer, Kanpur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 95/LKW/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Aditya Flexipack LLP, Kanpur vs. The Assessing Officer, Special Range, Kanpur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 94/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S India Pesticides Ltd, Bareilly vs. DCIT-1, Bareilly

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 5/LKW/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S India Pesticides Ltd. V. The Dcit-1 35-A, Civil Lines Bareilly Bareilly Tan/Pan:Aaaci3591D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Written Submission) Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.r
Section 143Section 154

M/S Swarup Chemicals Pvt. Ltd, Bareilly vs. DCIT-1, Bareilly

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 4/LKW/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

Mr.Shitij Dhawan, Kanpur vs. The Assessing Officer, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 36/LKW/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2019-20 Mr. Shitij Dhawan V. The Assessing Officer 122/235, Fazalganj Special Range Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Acqpd3380G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S Swarup Chemicals Pvt. Ltd, Bareilly vs. DCIT--1, Bareilly

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 3/LKW/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

M/S Bright 4 Wheel Sales Private Limited, Lucknow vs. DCIT, Ward -1, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 15/LKW/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Bright 4 Wheel Sales V. The Dy. Cit Private Limited Ward 1 11/Cp-6, Vikas Nagar, Lucknow Ring Road, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaccb8810E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Shakun Sales Private Limited, Lucknow vs. The Assessing Officer 4(1), Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 14/LKW/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

Shakun Sales Private Limited, Lucknow vs. The Assessing Officer 4(1), Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 13/LKW/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

Dharmendra Tiwari, Lucknow vs. The Assessing Officer 4(1), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 12/LKW/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2019-20 Dharmendra Tiwari V. The Assessing Officer 4(1) 24, Akansha Eldeco Udyan Ii Lucknow Uttratia Lucknow Tan/Pan:Adfpt4416R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

M/S. Rupani Footcare Private Limited, Kanpur Nagar vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 146/LKW/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Rupani Footcare V. The Income Tax Officer Private Limited Ward 2(3)(1) 122/334, Shastri Nagar Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaecr1354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Mr. Gulrej Ansari, Unnao vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Unnao New

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

ITA 139/LKW/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 143(1)Section 154

Mr. Gulrej Ansari, Unnao vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Unnao-New

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

ITA 138/LKW/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 143(1)Section 154