“employees contribution to PF”

DisallowancesSection 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(va)638 judgments

The decision most relied on for employees contribution to PF is CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. (321 ITR 508), cited in 1,629 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on employees contribution to PF

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).

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. 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.

(i) CIT v. Merchem Ltd.

378 ITR 443 · 2015 · High Court

631

citing judgments

Belated remittance of employees' contribution to ESI and PF, even if deposited before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), is not allowed as a deduction. This disallowance falls under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x), as Section 43B applies only to employer's contributions.

CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd.

368 ITR 749 · 2014 · High Court

609

citing judgments

Deduction for employees' contributions to PF and ESIC is allowable under Section 43B if paid before the due date for filing the return under Section 139(1); similarly, delayed deposits of employers' contributions to ESIC and PF are also allowable.

CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn

41 Taxmann.com 100 · 2014 · High Court

540

citing judgments

Employees' contributions to provident fund or other welfare funds are deductible under section 36(1)(va) only if paid by the due date specified in the respective welfare fund enactments, and section 43B does not extend this period to the income tax return filing due date under section 139(1).

CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur

43 Taxmann.com 411 · 2014 · High Court

524

citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund, ESI, and other welfare funds, if deposited by the due date for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), are allowable as a deduction and cannot be disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) or Section 43B, even if deposited after the due date prescribed by the respective welfare Acts.

Judgments citing employees contribution to PF

Sonia Chawla, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Faridabad

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

ITA 669/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Girish Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA

Laurels (India) Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-13(1), Delhi

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

ITA 2887/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C.M. Garglaurels (India) Impex Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, C.O. M/S. Shri Ram ‘G’ Circle-13(1), Assocaites, B-9/B, First Floor, Delhi Kalka Ji, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacs9311B

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

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

returned income of the assessee u/s 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act on account of late deposit of employee contribution to PF and ESI while processing the return of income vide order dated 23.12.2021. 4. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) against the proposed adjustment

Encotec Energy (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-7(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 152/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaencotec Energy (India) Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 90-A, Pocket 1, Mayur Vihar, Circle-7(1), Phase-1, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacce1338E Assessee By : Shri Baldev Raj, Ca Revenue By : Shri N. K. Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17/08/2023

For Appellant: Shri Baldev Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. K. Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

returned income of the assessee u/s 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act on account of late deposit of employee contribution to PF and ESI while processing the return of income vide order dated 14.03.2022. 3. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) against the proposed adjustment

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Viraj Profiles Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1998/MUM/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 36Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “J” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (JM

R.K. Carriers India Private Limited, Udaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 147/JODH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2014-15 R.K. Carriers India Private The Acit, Limited, 4 Laxmi Nagar, Subcity V Circle-1, Centre Chouraha, Sector No. 8, S Udaipur (Raj.) Hiran Magri, Udaipur (Raj.)- 313001 Pan: Aadcr8681E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 09/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09/08/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Delhi Dated 29.08.2022 Emanating From The Order Under Section 143(3) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Passed By Acit, Circle-1, Udaipur For The A.Y.2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Ld. Cit (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi Has Grossly Erred In Facts & In Law In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs. 308827.00 Made On Account Of Delayed Statutory Payment Of Employee Contribution Of Pf As Per The Provisions Of Section 36(1)(Va) Of The It Act, 1961 As Per His Convenience. Therefore, The Action Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi Is Unwarranted, Against The Principles Of Natural Justice, Illegal & Unjustified & The Disallowance So Made & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Deleted. R.K. Carriers India Private Ltd. 2. That The Appellant Reserves His Rights To Add, To Alter Or To Modify Any Grounds Of The Appeal On Or Before Hearing Of The Same.”

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

grossly erred in facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 308827.00 made on account of delayed statutory payment of employee contribution of PF as per the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act, 1961 as per his convenience. Therefore, the action

Aero Club, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-49(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2957/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Pradip Dinodia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 270A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh

Dedha India Solutions P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 268/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Baldev Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr.DR

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B” DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR

Tuv Sud South Asia Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissoiner of Income Tax Appeals, Mumbai

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

ITA 282/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Tuv Sud South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Cit, Nfac, 1, Tuv House, Off Saki Vihar Road, New Delhi Vs. Saki Naka, Mumbai – 400 072

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act dated 22.11.2019 where the A.O./CPC made an addition of Rs.35,99,592/- being the employees contribution to PF & ESIC deposited belatedly after the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts but before filing of the return of income. 5. The assessee ... Civil Appeal No. 2833 of 2016 vide order dated 12.102.022) where it was held that the delayed deposit of employees contribution to PF & ESIC after the due date under the relevant Acts is no more an allowable deduction and the said order was then recalled by the Tribunal vide order

Royal Strips Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. A.O, .5(3) 91), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1555/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “D” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (JM

Abhay Chordia, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jaipur

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 291/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur03 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Deeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69C

assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. That the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 74,402/- in regard to employees contribution to PF and ESI deposited by the appellant within the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) but after the due dates ... allowed u/s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s.2(24)(x) of the Act. Therefore, these late payments of Rs. 35,729/- received on account of employee contribution towards PF and Rs. 38,683/- on account of ESI found not allowable expenditure and the same also added to the income of the assessee

Mehk Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2489/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “D” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (JM

Atlas Tours & Travels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 210/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Gyaneshwar KataramFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati

Section 143(1)Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

solitary ground of appeal is the disallowance of ₹25,72,165/- made u/s. 2. 36(1)(va) of the Act pertaining to employees contribution to PF and ESIC deposited belatedly after the due date prescribed under the relevant Act but before filing of the return of income. 2 Atlas Tours ... ./CPC vide intimation dated 3.01.2020 made a disallowance of ₹25,72,165/- u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act being the employees contribution towards PF & ESIC deposited after the due date prescribed under the relevant Act. 4. The assessee was in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) challenging the impugned

Akriti Jewelcraftz (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2262/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

disallowing INR 5,32,812/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of delayed payment of Employees contribution to PF and ESI without appreciating the 2 Akriti Jewelcaftz (P) Ltd. fact that the payments have been made before the due date of filing the return ... Appeal) erred in law by not appreciating the fact that when adjustment of a debatable issue (disallowance of delayed payments of employees' contribution to PF and ESI) can be done u/s 143(1) then the same issue is also rectifiable u/s 154 of the Act.” 3. The matter has attained

Welgrow Hotels Concepts P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-27(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 436/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2018-19 Welgrow Hotels Concepts P. Ltd., Vs Ito, B-6, Geetanjali Enclave, Ward-27(1), Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 017. Pan: Aaacw5407C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Krishnan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.436/Del/2023 For Ay 2018-19 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, In Short] In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048179868(1) Dated 22.12.2022 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 154 R.W.S. 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 02.12.2020 By The Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward 27(1), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’). 2. The Only Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Confirming The Disallowance Made On Account Of Employee’S Contribution Of Provident Fund & Employee State Insurance In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case.

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd vs CIT reported in 448 ITR 518. It is not in dispute that the employees contribution to PF and ESI were deposited by the assessee to the Government account beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective acts but well before

Starline Workshop, Mumbai vs. ITO WD1(1) (1), Mumbai

ITA 1742/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return. 3. The Appellant Prays That The Adjustment Made In The Intimation Order U/S 143(1) Of The Act May Be Deleted. 4. The Appellant Craves Your Honour'S Leave To Add, Alter Or Amend Any Ground Of Appeal At The Time Of Hearing Or Before.”

For Appellant: Shri Ryan Saldanha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

erred in confirming addition of Rs.4,26,005/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the employees contribution to PF and ESIC was deposited before the due date of filing of return. 3. The appellant prays that the adjustment made in the intimation order ... return. 6. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee company challenging the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) contended that disallowing employees’ contribution to PF & ESIC while processing the return under section 143(1) is against the provision of the Act as it would not fall within the ambit

Advanced Bolting Solutions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 989/MUM/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.988 & 989/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2019-20 To 2020-21)

For Appellant: Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Ratnakar Shelake

Section 143(1)Section 2Section 2(24)Section 250Section 36

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 988 & 989/Mum/2023 Advanced Bolting Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT(A) NFAC IN THE

Advanced Bolting Solutions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeas), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 988/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.988 & 989/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2019-20 To 2020-21)

For Appellant: Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Ratnakar Shelake

Section 143(1)Section 2Section 2(24)Section 250Section 36

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 988 & 989/Mum/2023 Advanced Bolting Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT(A) NFAC IN THE

Eximius Management Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for the statistical purpose

ITA 1565/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 20.07.2023

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 194JSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

assessee has challenged the disallowance of ₹13,09,539/- and 61,79,090/- for A.Ys. 2020-21 and 2021-22 respectively towards Employees Contribution to PF&ESIC which were deposited after the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts but before filing of the return of income. The assessee ... CPC/AO vide intimation u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act made the adjustments towards delayed payment of Employees Contribution to PF&ESIC u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act and u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act towards the non deduction TDS on audit fees. 3 ITA No. 1564 & 1565/Mum/2023

Eximius Management Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for the statistical purpose

ITA 1564/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 20.07.2023

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 194JSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

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

impugned order u/s 154 dated 29.03.2023 since there was no apparent mistake from the record as the assessee has admittedly deposited the employees’ contribution to PF & ESI before the due date of filing of the income tax return, therefore, respectfully following the decisions of the jurisdictional ITAT ... delayed payment of employees contribution to ESI amounting to Rs. 11,70,718/- was wrongly allowed and the issue of delayed payment of employees contribution to PF amounting to Rs. 15,85,541 /- was not adjudicated. 3. In view of the above facts of the case