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)

Kunamneni Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 549/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Kunamneni Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Sy. No.72/B, Jaraganahalli Mastrusi Central Processing Centre, Arcade, 2Nd Floor, J. P. Nagar, Bengaluru. 6Th Phase, Kanakapura Road, Bengaluru – 560 078. Pan : Aaeck 4698 R Assessee By : Shri. H. V. Gowthama, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 25.08.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2018-19 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.40,00,810/-. In An Intimation Dated 16.10.2019 Issued U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Added A Sum Of Rs.9,38,950/- Representing Employees’ Share Of Contribution To Esi To The Extent Not Paid On Or Before The Due Date As Mentioned In Sec 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 3. It Was The Case Of The Assessee That Employees’ Share Of Esi Has Been Paid Before The Due Date For Filing Of Return U/S.139(1) Of The Act (This Fact Is Not In Dispute) & Hence Has Been Considered Allowable On The Basis Of Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Shri. H. V. Gowthama, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Aankit Granites Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 480/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Aankit Granties Limited, Vs. Ito, No.886, 19Th Main, Iv Cross, Ward – 1(1)(3), Btm Layout Ii Stage, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aabca 5821 D Assessee By : Shri. Cuddapah Ramesh, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 30.07.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2014-15 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,99,306/-. In Assessment Order Dated 26.12.2016 Issued U/S.143(3) Of The Act, The Ao Added A Sum Of Rs. 5,99,686/- Representing Employees’ Share Of Contribution To Esi To The Extent Not Paid On Or Before The Due Date As Mentioned In Sec 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 3. It Was The Case Of The Assessee That Employees’ Share Of Esi Has Been Paid Before The Due Date For Filing Of Return U/S.139(1) Of The Act (This Fact Is Not In Dispute) & Hence Has Been Considered Allowable On The Basis Of Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Shri. Cuddapah Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Prakashpai Kochikar, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 479/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 Shri. Prakash Pai Kochikar, Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, No.680, I Floor, 46Th Cross, 100 Feet Ring Central Processing Centre, Road, 5Th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 041. Pan : Adwpp 7348 F Assessee By : Shri. Prakash Hegde, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 25.08.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.17,18,440/-. In An Intimation Dated 12.04.2020 Issued U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Added A Sum Of Rs. 15,31,406/- Representing Employees’ Share Of Contribution To Esi To The Extent Not Paid On Or Before The Due Date As Mentioned In Sec 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 3. It Was The Case Of The Assessee That Employees’ Share Of Esi Has Been Paid Before The Due Date For Filing Of Return U/S.139(1) Of The Act (This Fact Is Not In Dispute) & Hence Has Been Considered Allowable On The Basis Of Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Shri. Prakash Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Vastra Overseas Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 478/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Vastra Overseas Limited, Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, No.17/18, Bangalore International Pubic Central Processing Centre, Schoo Road, Chikkalasandra, Uttarahalli, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 061. Pan : Aaccv 4829 R Assessee By : Shri. Puneet Oberoi, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 31.07.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2018-19 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.12,56,350/-. In An Order Dated 06.01.2020 Issued U/S.154 Of The Act, On An Intimation U/S. 143(1) Dated 28.02.2019, The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Confirmed The Addition Of A Sum Of Rs.84,179/- Representing Employees’ Share Of Contribution To Esi To The Extent Not Paid On Or Before The Due Date As Mentioned In Sec 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 3. It Was The Case Of The Assessee That Employees’ Share Of Esi Has Been Paid Before The Due Date For Filing Of Return U/S.139(1) Of The Act (This Fact Is Not In Dispute) & Hence Has Been Considered Allowable On The Basis Of Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Shri. Puneet Oberoi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Luthra & Luthra Chartered Accountants, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-63(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3945/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Aakash Deep Jain & Sh. N. K. Billaiya(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Luthra & Luthra Chartered Acit Accountants A-16/9, Vasant Vs Circle – 63 (1) Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaafl1231A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 36Section 40Section 43B

Digicall Teleservices Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6267/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2006-07] Digicall Teleservices Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit (Formerly Page Point Services India Central Circle-25 Pvt. Ltd.) D-7, Dhawandeep New Delhi Apartment, 6, Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi Pan-Aabcp794Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 09.12.2021

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(24)Section 36Section 36(1)(Va)

Amar Samanata, Bishnupur vs. CPC, Bangalore, ITO, Wad-26(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 317/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Adyar Ananda Bhavan Sweets India P Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 403/CHNY/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 402 & 403/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/S. Adyar Ananda Bhavan Vs The Acit, Sweets India P Ltd., Central Cirlce - 3(4), No.9, Shastri Nagar, Chennai – 34. M.G. Road, Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 020. Pan: Aaica 3787F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओ रसे/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate & Shri Arjunraj, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Durgesh Sumrott, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.12.2021

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Durgesh Sumrott, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Adyar Ananda Bhavan Sweets India P Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 402/CHNY/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 402 & 403/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/S. Adyar Ananda Bhavan Vs The Acit, Sweets India P Ltd., Central Cirlce - 3(4), No.9, Shastri Nagar, Chennai – 34. M.G. Road, Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 020. Pan: Aaica 3787F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओ रसे/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate & Shri Arjunraj, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Durgesh Sumrott, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.12.2021

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Durgesh Sumrott, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S. Eskay Heat Transfers Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 534/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sri.Prashanth C, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Sh. Sankanwar Singh, Ludhiana vs. ITO-Ward-VI(3), Ludhiana

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

ITA 294/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 294/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Sankanwar Singh, The Assessing Officer, बनाम 9161, Urban Estate, Phase-Ii, Ward Vi(3), Dugri, Ludhiana 141002 Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Fbips7094N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Navneet Sehgal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Sh. Rajinder Kumar Saini, Baddi vs. DCIT, CPC/ITO, Baddi

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

ITA 291/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing The Itr As Per Challans Submitted Before Cit(A) & Several Judicial Pronouncements Are In Favour Of The Assessee. 2. Any Other Ground Or Grounds As May Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Ravinder Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Sh. Rajinder Kumar Saini, Baddi vs. DCIT, CPC/ITO, Baddi

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

ITA 290/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing The Itr As Per Challans Submitted Before Cit(A) & Several Judicial Pronouncements Are In Favour Of The Assessee. 2. Any Other Ground Or Grounds As May Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Ravinder Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Sarajit Bhattacharyya, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-25(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 443/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Manipur Motors, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 32, Kolkata(As Per Pin Code Jurisdiction) Earlier ACIT, Circle-9, Imphal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 436/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S. Empower Guarding Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assesseeis allowed

ITA 559/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year :2018-19 M/S. Empower Guarding Services Private Limited, Vs. Acit, No.69, 2Nd Floor, Lic Colony, Woc Road, Central Processing Centre, Near Shankar Matt, Basaveshwara Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 079. Pan : Aacce1898 H Assessee By : Smt. Kusuma Yathish Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 07.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 27.08.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2018-19 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.5,82,050/-. In An Intimation Dated 04.03.2020 Issued U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Added A Sum Of Rs. 4,23,182/- Representing Employees’ Share Of Contribution To Esi To The Extent Not Paid On Or Before The Due Date As Mentioned In Sec 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 3. It Was The Case Of The Assessee That Employees’ Share Of Esi Has Been Paid Before The Due Date For Filing Of Return U/S.139(1) Of The Act (This Fact Is Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Smt. Kusuma YathishFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Sri Rama Rao Road, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 391/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaiana Bhatia, CA
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

Radiant Industries, Ludhiana vs. ITO-Ward-5(3), Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 296/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Furnishing The Return Of Income Under Section 139(1) Of The Act. When The Matter Was Taken To The Ld. Cit(A) The Said Disallowance Was Sustained.

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

Mohan Motor Business Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. II(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 486/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S H.S.Mercantile Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 9(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 413/KOL/2021[2019-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2021AY 2019-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B