https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302470 The appeal was filed against the addition of Rs.33,95,734/- due to late payment of Provident Fund under s.36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) upheld the addition based on a previous High Court decision. Despite the assessee's absence during the hearing, the ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that genuine delays in payment should not be penalized under s.36(1)(va). The ITAT concluded that the addition was unjustified, allowing the appeal. en-us Wed, 24 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 May 2022 09:35:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302470 The appeal was filed against the addition of Rs.33,95,734/- due to late payment of Provident Fund under s.36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) upheld the addition based on a previous High Court decision. Despite the assessee's absence during the hearing, the ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that genuine delays in payment should not be penalized under s.36(1)(va). The ITAT concluded that the addition was unjustified, allowing the appeal. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 24 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302470