“Section 36(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 36Section 36(1)3,872 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 36(1) is CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340), cited in 2,118 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 36(1)

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.

313 ITR 340 · 2009 · High Court

2,118

citing judgments

Where an assessee claims that investments were made out of own funds, interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not apply if the assessee demonstrates the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to cover such investments.

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).

S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT

288 ITR 1 · 2007 · Supreme Court

1,484

citing judgments

Interest paid on borrowed funds cannot be disallowed merely because the assessee made interest-free advances, provided those advances were made for business purposes and commercial expediency. The Revenue cannot dictate a businessman's commercial decisions, but the assessee bears the onus to prove the business expediency.

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. HDFC Bank Ltd.

366 ITR 505 · 2014 · High Court

1,261

citing judgments

When an assessee possesses interest-free funds sufficient to cover investments yielding tax-free income, it is presumed that such investments were made from these interest-free funds, precluding disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A.

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.

TRF Ltd. v. CIT

323 ITR 397 · 2010 · Supreme Court

714

citing judgments

For claiming deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, it is sufficient for the assessee to write off the debt as irrecoverable in its accounts, and it is not necessary to prove that the debt has actually become irrecoverable.

Judgments citing Section 36(1)

M/S. Scantech Laser Pvt. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Cir 15(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1968/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing M/S. Scantech Laser Pvt. Ltd Of Return U/S.139(1). In Both The Years Prima Facie Adjustments Have Been Made U/S.143(1) Disallowing The Payment Of Employees Pf & Esic U/S. 36(1)(Va) On The Ground That Same Has Been Paid After Due Date Prescribed Of The Respective Acts.

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

could have been treated only as receipts not amounting to income. When Parliament introduced the amendments in 1988-89, inserting section 36(1)(va) and simultaneously inserting the second proviso of section 43B, its intention was not to treat the disparate nature of the amounts, similarly. As discussed previously ... prescribed time - by way of contribution of the employees' share to their credit with the relevant fund is to be treated as deduction (Section 36(1)(va)). The other important feature is that this distinction between the employers' contribution (Section 36(1)(iv)) and employees' contribution required to be deposited

M/S. Scantech Laser Pvt. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Cir 15(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1967/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

New Light Facility Management, Jlandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -4 (3), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 140/ASR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Supreme Court that there is clear distinction between employer’s contribution which is its primary liability under law [in terms of Section 36(1 )(iv)] and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it from its employees’ [in terms of Sec. 36(1)(va)]. The former ... character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of Section 2(24)(x) and therefore, subjected to conditions spelt out by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked

DCIT, Central Circle -15, New Delhi vs. B.L.Kashyap & Sons Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross objection of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2622/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 The Dcit, Centralcircle-15, New Delhi M/S. B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd., 409, 4Th Floor, Dlf Tower-A, Jasola, 110055 Vs. New Delhi 110025 Pan Aaacb 0205 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 174/Del/2022 In Ita No.2622/Del/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd., The Dcit, Centralcircle-15, New Delhi 409, 4Th Floor, Dlf Tower-A, Jasola, 110055 New Delhi 110025 Vs. Pan Aaacb 0205 F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sourav Rohtagi, CA

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)

merit in such plea that the belated deposit of employees contributions to PF/ESIC governed under Section 36(1)(va) is also simultaneously amenable to deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. In terms of the provision, Section 37(1) permits deduction of expenditure which is not in the nature ... deduction of expenditure under the general clause of Section 37(1) would not extend to expenditure specially covered within the ambit of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Pvt. Ltd. (supra) itself explains this position in Para

DCIT, Circle-5(2), New Delhi vs. Centum Learning Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and cross objection of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6236/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2011-12 The Dcit, Circle-5(2), New Delhi M/S. Centum Learning Ltd., 110002 127, Neel Gagan, Mandi Road, Vs. Sultanpur, Mehrauli, New Delhi 110030 Pan Aadcb 3842 R

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, CA

Section 14A

period not served by them was accounted a since, the non-recoverability of the same is bad debt which is fully allowable under section 36(1) (vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the Act. 14. On the other hand, the ld. Senior DR contended that the ld. CIT(A) uphold

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central)-I, Raipur vs. Mesers Chhattisgarh Steel & Power Limited, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 92/RPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.91 & 92/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Chhattisgarh Steel & Power Limited. 142, Sahid Smarak, G.E Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaccc7479G ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Puja Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,48,041/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of violation of the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting ... funds, viz. Employee’s Provident fund (EPF) and Employee’s State Insurance (ESI) is liable to be disallowed as per the mandate of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Act. 32. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I, Raipur vs. Mesers Chhattisgarh Steel & Power Limited, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 91/RPR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Puja Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

Shri Murlimanohar Ramkishan Mundhra, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2)(1), Surat

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 158/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.158/Srt/2023 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Physical Court) Murlimanohar Ramkishan Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), (Old Ward- Mundhra, 301 To 308, Vs 1(2)(3) Surat, Aayakar Third Floor, Shree Krishna Market, Near Metro Tower, Bhavan, Majura Gate, Ring Road, Surat-395002 Surat-395001 Pan No: Aflpm 6057 P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sudhir Surana, Ca & Shri Om Prakash Soni, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr अपील पंजीकरण/Appeal Instituted On 03.03.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 03.05.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 18.07.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Ld. Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 13.01.2023 For Assessment Year 2013-14, Which In Turn Arises From The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 30.11.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal:- Murllimanohar R Mundhra “1. Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts Confirming The Reassessment Proceeding Initiated By The Ld. Ao, Without Properly Appreciating The Submission Of The Appellant.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 57

proved by assessee and the reliance on the decision of Tribunal is misplaced. The interest expenses are not claimed as business expense under section 36(1)(iii) in the return of income and no revised return was filed within the prescribed time, if the assessees claimed expenses for the purpose

Complete Solutions Facilty Management Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-14(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1323/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambartha

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

computing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 2,19,57,520, inter-alia, after making disallowance of Rs.29,76,223, under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 5. Vide impugned order, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee following the decision ... audit report, the tax auditor mistakenly mentioned the combined amount of payment made towards employer’s contribution and employees’ contribution to ESIC under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The learned AR further submitted that the payment of employer’s contribution of Rs. 15,21,934, towards ESIC

Guntubolu Uma Sai Prasad, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 97/VIZ/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Circular No. 22/2015 and 17/12/2015 wherein the claim of deduction relating to employee’s contribution to welfare funds which are governed by section 36(1)(va) of the Act does not apply. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in considering the amendment had been brought in the recent Finance ... 1,86,01,880 towards EPF and Rs. 48,31,490/- towards ESI] invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. DCIT, CPC, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A)-NFAC. 7. Before

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Guntubolu Uma Sai Prasad, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 227/VIZ/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Guntubolu Uma Sai Prasad, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 226/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Diwyesh Mahendra Dave, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Circle 41(2)1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1190/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri S.M. BandiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

against the disallowance on account of delayed payment of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund (P.F) and Employees State Insurance Corporation (E.S.I.C) under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case as emanating from the record, are: The assessee is an individual and is engaged ... inter-alia, after making disallowance of Rs.5,16,707, on account of delayed payment of employees’ contribution to P.F. and E.S.I.C. under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Vide impugned order, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee following the decision

Drishti Lifesaving Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Centralised Processing Centre, Bengaluru

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1076/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm Drishti Lifesaving Pvt. Ltd. Top Floor, Mehta, Mahal, Cpc, 15, Mathew Road, Vs. Benaluru-560600 Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcd0528C

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

NFAC) may be directed to be deleted. 3. The Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) relied on the newly amended provisions of the section 36(1)(va) and section 43B and held that said delayed payment is not allowable to the appellant, without appreciating that, the disallowance is made ... making disallowance of ₹10,544,018/– on account of delay in payment of employees contribution to provident fund and ESIC under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Against the intimation, assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A). Assessee relied upon several judicial precedents, however, the learned

Mindcrest (India) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst Dir Income Tax CPC, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1430/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm Mindcrest (India) Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Cpc 106, Peninsula Centre, Vs. Bengaluru-560500 Parel, Mumbai-400012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccm5872D

For Appellant: Mr. Sarla Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, DR

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 38

before the due date prescribed are mentioned at Serial No. 20(b) wherein the details of contribution received from employees as referred in section 36(1)(va) is mentioned. This detail also shows that the assessee is dues date of payment and assessee is actual date of contribution deposited. There ... employees contribution is not paid within the due dates prescribed under the respective provident fund/ESIC act, same is not allowable under section 36 (1) (va) of the act. Therefore, the issue is squarely covered against the assessee. 011. However, Assessee has also submitted that if the due date

Gbt India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, OSD, Delhi

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

ITA 1763/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu S. Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Kumar, CIT DR

Section 43BSection 92C

DRP/Ld. AO erred in not appreciating that the Appellant had satisfied the twin conditions for allowance of deduction for bad debts contained in Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) of the Act, which are that the (a) bad debts have been written off as irrecoverable

Sionc Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 40/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.40/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Sionc Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of D.No.43-11-56, Subbalakshminagar Income Railway New Colony Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aalcs7973C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

A.Y.2019-20 SIONC Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd, Visakhapatnam 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the amendment carried in the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) is prospective from A.Y.2020-21 as per the Memorandum explaining to the Finance Bill and hence could not be applied to the relevant assessment ... employees contribution of EPF and ESI paid beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective Act and these funds are referred in section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The information gives the details of due date of payment, actual date of payment to the concerned authorities and these payments

DCIT, Circle-2(2), Surat vs. The Surat District Co-Op. Bank Limited, Surat

In the result, ground No.6 raised by the assessee, is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.590/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Vs. The Acit, Circle-2(2), Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, Surat. J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2011-12) The Dcit, Circle-2(2), Vs. The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Surat. Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

extent of Rs.1,73,75,000/- by the AO, suffered from clear and apparent misinterpretation, misconstruction and misapplication of the provisions of section 36(1)(viia)(a) of the Act and thus, liable to be stuck down. ITA Nos.590/SRT/2019 & 4/SRT/2020 The Surat Dist. Co.op Bank Ltd. 5. On the facts ... case in for the Assessment Year 2017-18, 146 taxmann.com 495 (Surat-trib) whereby the issue of relating to deduction claimed under section 36(1) (viia) and provision for doubtful debts, created against standard assets have been discussed and adjudicated in favour of assessee. The Learned Counsel for the assessee

The Surat District Co-Op. Bank Ltd, Surat vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Surat

In the result, ground No.6 raised by the assessee, is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 590/SRT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

Vaibhav Global Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 96/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

1 [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC). The Hon'ble Court held as under- "...The significance of this is that Parliament treated contributions under section 36(1)(va) differently from those under section 36(1)(iv). The latter (hereinafter, "employers' contribution") is described as "sum paid by the assessee ... employer by way of contribution towards a recognizedprovident fund". However, the phraseology of section 36(1)(va) differs from section 36(1)(iv), it enacts that "any sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section