“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)

Khyber Industries Private Limited, Srinagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, Srinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 31/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 250oSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

facts and in the circumstances of the case in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 83, 21, 928/- invoking the provisions of section 36(1) (va) read with section 2(24) (x) on account of employees contribution to PF/ESI deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the said Acts though ... learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 83,21,928/- relying on the amendment made to section 36(1) (va) by Finance Act, 2021 holding the same to be clarificatory ignoring the fact that the said amendment was applicable prospectively i.ew.e.fAsessment Year

Devraj Beharnani, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, C-3, Jodhpur/ CPC, Bengaluru, Jodhpur

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

ITA 149/JODH/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Mar 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad149/Jodh/2022 (Assessment Year- 2020-21) Shri Devraj Beharnani Vs The Acit Atmaram Building Circle-3 Outside Sojati Gate Jodhpur Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adtpb 0305 M

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

assessee by observing as under:- ‘’5.29 From the above judicial decisions and also the unambiguous wording of the now amended provisions of Section 36(1) and 54B of the I.T. Act, it is clear that the employee’s contribution can be allowed as a deduction only if it has been ... appellant’s failure to pay the employee’s contribution of PF/ESI of Rs.1,44,813/- within the prescribed due date as per section 36(1)(va) is strictly in accordance with law. The order is, therefore, confirmed fully. Appellant ground on the issue fails. 5.31 Accordingly, these grounds of appeal

ACIT, Circle- 5(1), New Delhi vs. Blue Coast Hotels Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 287/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2016-17 Acit, Vs. Blue Coast Hotels Ltd., Circle-5(1), 415-417, Antriksh Bhawan, New Delhi. 22, Kg Marg, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacm0037G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Shri Aman Garg, Ca Revenue By : Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2023 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-2, New Delhi, Dated 21.10.2019, For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Whether The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Appreciating The Fact That There Was No Commercial Expediency Due To Which The Assessee Had Granted Interest Free Loans To Its Subsidiaries & Bore The Burden Of Interest For Their Sake. 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Whether The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.10,20,24,116/- Made U/S 14A Of The It Act, 1961 Without Appreciating The Facts Mentioned By The Ao For Disallowing Such Amount On The

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT, DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

were enjoying interest free funds and the assessee was bearing the burden of interest for their sake which is against the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’). Therefore, the AO was right in making disallowance of interest by taking

Aroma Aromatics & Flavours, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-28(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 1634/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1634/Del/2020 (A.Y 2017-18)

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

1 Aroma Aromatics & Flavors. Vs. ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH : “A” NEW DELHI ] BEFORE DR. B

ACIT, Circle- 15(2), New Delhi vs. Logix Infra Developers (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5400/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

which has been capitalized. Since, the interest is attributable to the cost of land, the interest expenditure is not allowable as per Section 36(1)(iii) o f the Income Tax Act, 1961. Similarly, the registration charges and the fee/penalty/damages/price for late registration amounts to an integral part of cost

M/S Beltex Rubber India, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 1 (1), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is dismissed

ITA 9/ASR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

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

Section 143(1)Section 250o

year and Rs.71,818/- on 18.04.2018 related to EPF payable. The assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with explanation to section 36(1)(va) and 43B and confirmed the addition amount of Rs.4,87,990/- (Rs.4,16,169/- (+) Rs.71,818/-). Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before ... taken the following grounds on basis of the explanation of section 36(1)(va) and 43B which was observed in retrospectively and request for application in legal way. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld.AO. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. The assessee was called

M/S Beltex Rubber India, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward - 1 (1), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is dismissed

ITA 8/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 143(1)Section 250o

Incedo Technology Solutions Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle -10(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 460/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

effect over the other provisions of the Act in respect of deduction and allowance of an expenditure hence the due date referred in section 36(1)(va) of the Act should be read in conjunction with section 43B of the Act. (iii) The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate ... Apex Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd, wherein it has held that the "Due date" in section 36(1)(va) for payment of employees' Provident Fund, ESIC etc contribution should be read with section 43B(b) to mean "due date" for filing

Golfgreen Infra Private Limited, Delhi vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 260/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Itr U/S 139(1)And The Amendment As Made In The Section By Finance Bill 2020 Is Effective From A.Y 2020-21 .

For Appellant: Ms. Nivedita, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 37(1)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

Indigo Infraprojects Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 10(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1887/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P.Kant[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Indigo Infraprojects Pvt.Ltd., Vs Acit, Wz-13, D/2, Opposite A-2, Circle-10(1), Gurudwara, Asaltpur, Janakpuri, Delhi. Delhi-110058. Pan-Aacci8551P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Tarun Kandhari, Ca & Ms. Renu Suri, Ca Respondent By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.03.2023

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 192Section 199Section 36(1)(va)

That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in taking a view that amendment in section 36(1)(va) of the Act is retrospective in nature. 4. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of CPC by not allowing

National Housing Bank, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range-6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1242/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36

taxability of such income in the hands of the assessee. Once such an amount becomes income of the employer-assessee, then section 36(1)(va) comes into play for providing the deduction. This provision provides that: `(va) any sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which ... deduction for the employees’ share for depositing the same in the relevant funds beyond the due date as given in Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va) on the strength of section 43B. The latter section opens with a non-obstante clause and provides that a deduction otherwise allowable

Dasari Bujji, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.20/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Dasari Bujji Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.40-54-5/31 Ward-1(1) Sanjeevayya Colony, Visakhapatnam Near Bethadha Church, Tatichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Bklpd8566J]

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

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

1). He further contended that the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have considered that the amendments made by Finance Act, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B are applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2021 i.e.A.Y.2022-23 and do not apply for the year under consideration. He further contended that the assessee ... 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

M/S Sanghvi Foods Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The DIT /CPC, Bengeluru

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 200/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Mongra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(24)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 40ASection 43B

already considered all the aspects and finalize the assessment without making any addition to the extent of Rs. 6,47,664/- under Section 36(1)(va). But the issue is covered against the assessee. As regards, addition of Rs. 93,18,776/- when an amount

Aztec Shiva Handicrafts & Arts Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Jodhpur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 161/JODH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur13 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

Arts Pvt. Ltd. account of assessee’s failure to pay the employee’s contribution of PF/ESI within the prescribed due dates as per Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4. Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Sr. DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities

Shri Arun Kumar Shrivastava, Indore vs. Asstt, Director of Income Tax, Indore

ITA 98/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Shri Arun Kumar Adit, Cpc, Shrivastava, Bangalore 9, Shakti Nagar, Vs. Kanadia Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aopps 9595 H Assessee By Shri Soumya Bomb, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2023

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

preferred this appeal before us. 4. Thus, the sole issue involved is related to the disallowance u/s 2(24)(ix) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delayed payment of employee’s contributions to PF / ESI made by CPC through intimation issued u/s 143(1 ... contribution” is not statutorily disallowable at all because the same does not fall in the clutches of section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va); the same is governed by section 36(1)(iv) read with section 43B according to which the deduction is allowed if the assessee

M/S. Ritspin Synthetics Ltd., Pithampur vs. The DCIT, /CPC, Banglore

ITA 341/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) M/S Ritspin Synthetics Dcit, Cpc, Ltd. Bangalore Plot No.2, Kheda Vs. Industrial Growth Center, Pithampur District - Dhar (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaacr 8303 E Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2023

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(7)

provision for gratuity u/s 40A(7) of Rs. 32,70,362/-; and (ii) employees’ contributions to PF/ESI u/s 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of Rs. 1,28,43,256/-. Being aggrieved by same, the assessee filed first-appeal but could not succeed. Now, the assessee

The ADIT CPC, Bengaluru vs. Sunderlal Moolchand Jain, Indore

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 213/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) M/S Sunderlal Moolchand Adit, Cpc, Jain Tobacconist Private Bangalore Limited, Vs. 31, Kacchi Mohalla, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaecs 7779 P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2023

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

account of delay in depositing Employees' Sunderlal Moolchand Jain Page 2 of 7 Contribution towards PF and ESIC under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 even when the said issue is highly debatable in nature and therefore is outside the purview of the provisions of section ... passed under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of delay in depositing Employees' Contribution towards PF and ESIC under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without properly appreciating facts of the case and submissions made before him even when the said amount

M/S Vijay Pulses, Indore vs. The ACIT 4(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 205/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) M/S. Vijay Pulses, Dcit, Cpc, 12, Sajan Nagar, Bangalore Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaafv 9714 E Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2023

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(iv)Section 154Section 43B

merit, the employees contributions paid belatedly after due date under PF/ESI laws attract disallowance in terms of section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va). M/s.Vijay Pulses Page 4 of 8 5. Regarding 1st component of disallowance amounting to Rs. 2,10,005/-, we are not in agreement ... audit report regarding inadmissibility of claim with respect to contributions received from the employees for various funds as referred to in section 36(1)(va) of the Act, it would be useful to reproduce section 143(1) of the Act, which reads as under: Assessment. 143. (1) Where a return

Ishant Arora, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-51(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2694/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2023AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 234Section 36(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI) SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2694/Del./2022 (ASSESSMENT

T Srinivasa Rao&Co, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 184/VIZ/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Eastern Warehouse Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aaafe3741J] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.179/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sri Ranga Motors Vs Income Tax Officer Vizianagaram Ward-1 [Pan : Aabbfs8249P] Vizianagaram आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.174/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Tetali Anil Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-3(3) [Pan : Aaqpt9453L] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.184/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) T.Srinivasa Rao & Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aamft1310Q] Visakhapatnam

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

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

1). He further contended that the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have considered that the amendments made by Finance Act, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B are applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2021 i.e.A.Y.2022-23 and do not apply for the years under consideration. He further contended that the assessee ... employees contribution of EPF and ESI paid beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective Act and these various 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