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)

Technical Associates Limited, Lucknow vs. DCIT, Range-3, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 228/LKW/2023[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2015-16 Technical Associates Limited V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income 8Th Km, Faizabad Road Tax Vijaypur, Gomti Nagar Range 6 Lucknow Lucknow Pan:Aabct7365F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Santhosh Kumar Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25 06 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25 06 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Santhosh KumarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 32(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)

Ken Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1006/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George Kr Assessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Ken Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, C 103 Trivoli Apartment, Block Vento, Circle – 4(3)(1), 1St Floor, Segehalli Village, Bengaluru. Whitefield, Hoskote Road, Bengaluru – 560 067. Pan : Aaecp 8792 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Trinity Kitchenware Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Appeal -21, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms

ITA 1264/MUM/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Jigna Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. CIT), SR. D.R
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234FSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

Ajit Kumar Singh, Patna vs. DCIT/Ac, Circle-4, Patna

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 72/PAT/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 72/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ajit Kumar Singh Dc/Ac, Circle-4, Patna Geeta Mansion, Gujral Path Vs Nalapar, P.O. Keshrinagar Rajivnagar Patna - 800024 [Pan : Algps9902G] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somil Agarwal, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Jcit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 05/08/2021, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Sole Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Regarding The Disallowance U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Payment Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf & Esi Of Rs.1,80,45,483/-, Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer As Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A). 3. We Have Heard Rival Contentions & Perused The Material Placed Before Us. The Sole Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Relating To The Disallowance Of Rs. 1,80,45,483/- Made By The Assessing Officer/Cpc U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act, On Account Of Delay In Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf & Esi. It Remains An Admitted Fact

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, JCIT, D/R
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Shriram Dadaji Matte, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 180/NAG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri R.K. GaneriwalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 14A

Shriram Dadaji Matte, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 179/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri R.K. GaneriwalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 14A

Supreme & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes as directed above

ITA 613/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.613/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Supreme & Co. Pvt. Ltd…………………………………...………....Appellant 53, Justice Chandra Madhav Road, West Bengal – 700020. [Pan: Aacca7232K] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ramesh Kr. Varma, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 24, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 02.02.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ld. Cit(Appeal) Erred In Making Disallowance Of Rs.85,23,450/- U/S 36(1)(Va) In Respect Of Delayed Deposits Of Pf. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(Appeal) Ought Not To Have Made Any Disallowance In Respect Of Delayed Deposit Of Pf The Same Having Been Deposited Before The Due Date Of Furnishing Of The Return Of Income. 3. For That The Disallowance Of Rs.85,23,450/- U/S 36(1)(Va) In Respect Of Delayed Deposit Of Pf Was Wrong & Uncalled For. 4. Cit(A) Has Upheld The Disallowance Of A.O.”

Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Samar Biri Factory, Siliguri vs. A.O., Assessment Unit, Bengaluru

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

ITA 582/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 582/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Samar Biri Factory Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit Aurobindopally Vs Siliguri - 734006 [Pan : Aaofs7941N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sujit Basu & Rajib Mukherjee, Advocate Revenue By : Shri G. Ajay Robin Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 19/02/2024, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds Of Appeal But The Main Contention Of The Assessee Is That On Account Of The Death Of The Key Person Of The Assessee Firm, No One Could Appear Before The Ld. Assessing Officer And, Thereafter When The Appeal Was Filed Before The Ld. Cit(A), The Same Was Dismissed On Account Of Delay In Filing The Appeal. It Was Prayed That Since High Pitched Assessment Has Been Made In The Case Of Assessee By The Ld. Assessing Officer & Assessee Had No Opportunity To Furnish The Details, The Issues On Merits May Be Restored To The File Of The Ld. Assessing Officer For De Novo Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Sujit Basu & Rajib Mukherjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Ajay Robin Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 69C

M/S. Rpl Projects Limited, Kolkata vs. A.D.I.T., CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 62/KOL/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 62/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Rpl Projects Limited Asstt. Director Of Income Tax, 24, Mangalam Building Vs Cpc, Bangalore 301, Hemant Basu Sarani Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaecr3350D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Bonnie Debbarma, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -21, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 25/11/2021, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For Assessment Year 2018- 19. 2. When The Case Was Called For Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. No Application For Adjournment Has Been Filed. Under These Circumstances, We Proceed To Adjudicate The Instant Appeal Ex- Parte Qua The Assessee, On The Basis Of Available Records & Hearing The Ld. D/R. 3. We Have Heard The Ld. D/R & Perused The Material Placed Before Us. The Sole Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Relating To The Disallowance Of Rs. 41,76,420/- Made By The Assessing Officer/Cpc

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Bonnie Debbarma, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Khandelwal Laboratories Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Addidtion Commissioner on Income Tax Appeal, Bengaluru

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

ITA 676/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 676/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2018-19) Khandelwal Laboratories Vs. Addl. Cit(A) Private Limited Bengaluru 79/87 D Lad Path Chinchpokli Mumbai 400033 Pan Aaack4225E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2024 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi1. This Appeal Is Filed By Khandelwal Laboratories Private Limited (The Assessee/Appellant) Against The Appellate Order Passed By The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeal – 4, Bangalore (The Learned Cit – A) For Assessment Year 2018 – 19 Dated 6/2/2024 Wherein The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed Under Section 143 (1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] Dated 8/11/2019 By The Central Processing Centre Bangalore Wherein Claim Of Deduction Of The Assessee Pertaining To Employees Contribution Of Provident Fund & Employees State Insurance Scheme Paid On The Next Date Of The Due Date Immediately, Due Date Being Holiday, Was Disallowed, Was Dismissed. 2. The Assessee Is A Company Who Filed Its Return Of Income On 4/10/2018 At Rs Nil. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The Act On 8/11/2019 Wherein The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Determined At 42,81,719/–. The Adjustment Was Made With Respect To Page 1 Of 4

Section 10Section 143Section 36

DCIT, Circle, Patiala vs. M/S the British Co. Ed. School, Patiala

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 413/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

Marda Collections Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and further directions as per para 8 are issued to the AO

ITA 71/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri B. K. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 4Section 43B

North India Lpg Cylinders Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Kolkata

ITA 249/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.249/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2017-18 North India Lpg Cylinders Ltd.………....................…...……………....Appellant 12 Government Place, East Esplanade, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aadcn8006B] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Kolkata….….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ashish Rastogi, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 21, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Delhi. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Appellant Company Did Not Get The Notice Served For Hearing Trom The Office Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Delhi. 3. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Delhi, Had Erred In Making Disallowances On Account Of Delayed Payment Of Provident Fund & Employees State Insurance Of Rs. 14,54,713/.

Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Indiyaa Distribution Network LLP, Indore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Indore

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

ITA 258/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2018-19 Indiyaa Distribution Dy. Cit, Network Llp, 1(1), 11D, Sampat Farm, Indore. Opp.Agrawal Public बनाम/ School, Vs. Bicholi Mardana Road, Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aarfg1302N Assessee By Ms.Ruchira Singhal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2024

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S Empee Distilleries Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT-1, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 716/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.716/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. M/S.Empee Distilleries Ltd., The Pcit, 72, Greams Road, Chennai. Thousand Lights, Chennai-600 006. [Pan: Aaace 1687 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Shri M.Karunakaran, Adv. : ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 06.06.2024 : घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2024

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Gaurav International, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 49(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 3315/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3315/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Gaurav International Acit B-34, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Vs. Circle-49(1), Phase-1, West, New Delhi. Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. Pan No.Aaafg5920D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

Muniyallappa Bharathi, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3)(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands dismissed

ITA 841/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Subramanya Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 25oSection 36(1)(va)Section 43

Subodh Kumar Choudhary, Delhi vs. ADIT CPC, Delhi

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

ITA 3293/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

Gangol Sahkari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Ltd., Meerut vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Meerut

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3837/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Anubhav Sharmaita Nos.3836 & 3837/Del/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2019-20 Gangol Sahkari Dugdh Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2), Utpadak Sangh Ltd., Meerut. 282-Boundary Road, Civil Line, Meerut (Up) Pin:250001 Pan : Aaaag0147K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

Gangol Sahkari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Ltd., Meerut vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Meerut

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3836/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Anubhav Sharmaita Nos.3836 & 3837/Del/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2019-20 Gangol Sahkari Dugdh Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2), Utpadak Sangh Ltd., Meerut. 282-Boundary Road, Civil Line, Meerut (Up) Pin:250001 Pan : Aaaag0147K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B