IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRINARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1093/Mum/2025 (Assessment year: 2020-21)

Yes Bank Limited vs Additional commissioner of Income Yes Bank House, 8^th Floor, Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 PAN : AAACY2068D APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA No.992/Mum/2025 (Assessment year: 2020-21)

Additional commissioner of vs Yes Bank Limited Income Tax (Appeals), Yes Bank House, 8^th Floor Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 PAN : AAACY2068D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Thard &Ms.Vidhi Salot Respondent by : Ms. Ramapriya Raghavan - CIT DR&

Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh –

Sr. AR Date of hearing : 08/04/2025 Date of pronouncement : /04/2025

O R D E R

Per Anikesh Banerjee (JM):

The instant appeals of the assessee and revenue are filed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) / Addl JCIT(A), Panchkula *in short, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’]passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), for A.Y. 2020-21, date of order 16/12/2024. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the CPC, Bengaluru (in short, the “Ld. AO”)

passed under section 143(1) of the Act, date of order 26/12/2021.

2. Both the assessee and revenue has taken the following grounds:-

ITA No.1093/Mum/2025 (Assessee’s Appeal)

“GROUND NO. I: DISALLOWANCE U/S 36(1)(va) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.

9,44,99,290/-:

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble JCIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) amounting to Rs. 9,44,99,290/- (out of Rs. 9,75,96,266/-) made by the Ld. Centralized Processing Centre (“CPC”) in the intimation passed u/s 143(1).

2. The Hon’ble JCIT(A) failed to appreciate and ought to have held that employees’

contribution to provident fund, paid after the statutory due date owing to the moratorium imposed by the Reserve Bank of India in accordance with the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, could not be disallowed.

3. The Appellant prays that the disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act amounting to Rs.

9,44,99,290/- be deleted. GROUND NO.

GROUND II. LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234C OF THE ACT:

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble JCIT(A) erred in confirming the additional levy of interest u/s 234C of the Act amounting Rs.

17,37,64,891/- as consequential in nature.

2. The Hon’ble JCIT(A) failed to appreciate and ought to have held that interest u/s

234C is chargeable on returned income.

3. The Appellant prays that the interest u/s 234C of the Act be computed at Rs.

7,38,54,250/ which was declared by the Appellant in the revised return of income.”

ITA No.992/Mum/2025 (Revenue’s Appeal)

“1. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.

CIT(A) is justified in deleting the disallowance made under section 43B of the Act on account of contribution to gratuity fund of Rs. 30,00, 00,000/-?"

2 "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.

CIT(A) is justified in deleting the disallowance made by the A0 under section 43B of the Act on account of contribution to gratuity fund of Rs. 30,00,00,000/- without considering the facts that assessee has fled original ROl on 31.10.2020 u/s. 139(1) of the Act, whereas the payment of gratuity fund was made on 11.02.2021, which is in violation of provision of section

43B of the Act?

3 The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and / or delete any of the grounds of appeal as above.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act by the CPC, Bengaluru. During the processing, the CPC disallowed an amount of Rs.9,75,96,266/- claimed under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, representing employees’ contributions to EP