Shri Raj Kumar Bothra Vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Raipur

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

Shri Raj Kumar Bothra filed an appeal against the order passed by the ADDL/JCIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad dated 15.07.2024, which arose from the intimation issued by the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC)/A.O under Sec.143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2020-21. The assessee challenged the disallowance of his claim for deduction of delayed deposit of employee's share of contribution towards ESI/EPF of Rs.28,21,065/- u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act. The assessee argued that the adjustment made by AO CPC was not correct and beyond the purview of section 143(1) of the IT Act. The tribunal considered the submissions and the relevant precedents, and upheld the disallowance made by the AO CPC.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the disallowance of delayed deposit of employees share of contribution towards ESI/EPF u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act was correct?
• 2. Whether the addition of Rs.28,21,065/- made by AO CPC is confirmed?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• VMS Bathware Private Limited v. ITO, Ward 26(4)

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2018-19 & 2019-20Partly Allowed

• Sombir Singh Maan vs. ITO, Ward 1

• Sheo Parshad vs. ITO, Ward 4(1), Gurgaon

  Delhi bench

• Kachan Metals Pvt. Ltd. vs. DY. CIT, Circle -8(1)

  Kolkata benchAY 2022-23Allowed

• Pinnacle Vastunirman Private Limited vs. DCIT, Circle-4, Pune

  Pune bench

• Gurdev Singh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2020-21Dismissed