← All Phrases

“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

Roshan Hospital, Bhopal vs. DCIT-5(1), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 110/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniroshan Hospital Cpc 7-A-B, Govind Garden, Raisen Bangaluru Vs. Road, Govindpura, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aasfr 4278 B Assessee By Ms. Shreya Jain Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08.06.2023

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

justified in confirming the disallowance made u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of delay in deposit of employees contribution to PF & ESIC made by the CPC while processing return u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act. 3. We have heard the Ld. AR as well

Bijendra Singh, Sundargarh vs. ACIT, Circle Rourkela, Rourkela

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

ITA 101/CTK/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Jun 2023AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C. Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

dated 12.10.2022, reported in [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC), wherein, the 2 Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that if the employees contribution to PF and ESI has been paid beyond the time prescribed under the relevant PF Act, then same is not allowable under section ... been made before the due date of filing of return under the Income tax Act. It was the submission that the amount of employees contribution to PF and ESI, which has not been paid within the due date as prescribed under the relevant Act, has been held

K A Hospitality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Icome Tax Department -CPC-Bagalore, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1325/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Vikas Awasthym.A No.159/Mum/2023 [ Arising Out Of Ita No.1325/Mum/2022 (A.Y.2019-20)]

For Appellant: Shri A.N.ShahFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

Supreme Court of India in the case of Checkmate Services India (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. CIT, 448 ITR 518 has held that Employees contribution towards PF and ESIC after due date under the respective Acts is not allowable as deduction. 3. Per contra, Shri A.N.Shah appearing on behalf of the assessee ... case of assessee it is u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Once, it is evident from the records that payments in respect of employees contribution to PF and ESIC has been made beyond the “due date” as specified under the respective laws, the same has to be disallowed

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. the Fertilizer Corporation of India, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 3357/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sarita Kumari, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)

Ground No. 3 raised by the revenue for A.Y. 2006-07 is challenging the deletion of disallowance made on account of employees contribution to PF and ESI. 13.1. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, this issue is no longer

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. the Fertilizer Corporation of India, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 3356/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sarita Kumari, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)

Ground No. 3 raised by the revenue for A.Y. 2006-07 is challenging the deletion of disallowance made on account of employees contribution to PF and ESI. 13.1. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, this issue is no longer

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. the Fertilizer Corporation of India, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 3355/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sarita Kumari, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)

Ground No. 3 raised by the revenue for A.Y. 2006-07 is challenging the deletion of disallowance made on account of employees contribution to PF and ESI. 13.1. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, this issue is no longer

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. the Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 5468/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sarita Kumari, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)

Ground No. 3 raised by the revenue for A.Y. 2006-07 is challenging the deletion of disallowance made on account of employees contribution to PF and ESI. 13.1. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, this issue is no longer

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. the Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 5467/DEL/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sarita Kumari, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)

Ground No. 3 raised by the revenue for A.Y. 2006-07 is challenging the deletion of disallowance made on account of employees contribution to PF and ESI. 13.1. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, this issue is no longer

Creative Textile Mills Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 409/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Creative Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd., Dcit Cpc, 212, Cama Indl. Esate, Sun Post Box No. -1 Electronic Mill Compound, Lower Parel, Vs. City Post Office, Mumbai-400013. Karnataka-560 100. Pan No. Aaacc 5458 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sunil Hirawat Revenue By : Ms. Richa Gulati Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil HirawatFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati
Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

Apcer Life Sciences India Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Mumbai

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

ITA 2882/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Apcer Life Sciences India Limited Assessing Officer G-040, Vikas Centre, 104, S V Road, National E-Assessment Centre, Vs. Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400 054 Delhi

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 156Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

taken before the first appellate authority. The ld. CIT(A) has specifically mentioned that the assessee has made delayed deposits of employees contribution to PF & ESI aggregating to Rs.40,91,032/- as evident from the column 20(b) of the audit report as well as the CPC/A.O.’s intimation ... that the impugned disallowance was towards delayed deposits of employees contribution towards PF & ESI, which were said to be deposited after due date specified under the relevant Acts and but before the due date of filing of the returns u/s. 139(1) of the Act. This issue is no longer

Aggarwal Hotels Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle1(1), Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 2756/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Department by: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 32Section 36(1)Section 43B

1 Aggarwal Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI

Akar Auto Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 502/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

case of M/s Salasar Balaji Ship Breakers Pvt. Ltd.(supra) has also dealt with issue qua disallowance on account of daily payment of employees contribution to PF and ESI beyond the due date as prescribed in the relevant statute and by relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court

Integrity Verification Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1843/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryintegrity Verification Ito, Services Pvt.Ltd., 11, Ward-3(2)(1), बनाम/ Tulsani Chambers, Mumbai. Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccg1281A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Gyaneshwar Kataram ""थ" की ओर से/Respondentby: Shri M.P.Ahuja, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 11/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 29/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Om Prakash Kant - Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.09.2021 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [ In Short, The “Ld.Cit(A)”] For Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19. The Appeal Was Originally Heard & Pronounced On 28.04.2022, However, Later On In View Of The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Checkmate Services Pvt.Ltd. Vs Cit In Ita Of No.2833/2016 Dated 12.10.2022 Has Been Recalled For Deciding The Issue Of Deduction U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act. Accordingly, This Appeal Came Before Us For Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Gyaneshwar KataramFor Respondent: Shri M.P.Ahuja, Sr.AR
Section 10Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH“C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI NARENDER KUMAR

Alsisar Hotels & Resorts Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commisioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 135/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: The Due Date Of The Filing Of Return During The Year. 2. That The Petitioner Raves To Add, Alter Or Amend All Or Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Due Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Rathore (C.A.)For Respondent: None a
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

Civil Appeal No.2833 of 2016 dated 12.10.2022, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that if the employees contribution to PF and ESI has been paid beyond the time prescribed under the relevant PF Act, then same is not allowable under section 43B even after the payment ... been made before the due date of filing of return under the Income tax Act. It was the submission that the amount of employees contribution to PF and ESI, which has not been paid within the due date as prescribed under the relevant Act, has been held

Braham Parkash Yadav, Bhiwadi, Alwar vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 439/JPR/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 May 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Kumar Garg (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

PF. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO made an addition of Rs. 10,93,988/- towards belated payment of employees contribution to PF and ESI u/s 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. 3 Braham Parkash Yadav 5. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed ... assessee prayed for deletion of addition of Rs. 10,93,988/- which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) towards belated payment of employees contribution to PF and ESI u/s 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. The ld.AR of the assessee relied upon the following case

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sodexo Facilities Management Services India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2945/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopaldcit, Sodexo Facilities Circle-13(2)(2), Management Services बनाम/ Mumbai. India Pvt.Ltd., 1St Floor, Vs. Gemstar Commercial Complex, Ramchandra Lane, Extension Kanchpada, Malad West, Mumbai-400064. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aabcs4166M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri A.N.Bhalekar, Sr.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mrunal Parekh सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 16/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 25/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Om Prakash Kant- Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.09.2022 Passed By Ld Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“In Short The Ld. Cit(A)”]For Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2012-13, Raised Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri A.N.Bhalekar, Sr.ARFor Respondent: Shri Mrunal Parekh
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 43(6)(c)Section 50B(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH“G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS.KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL

S. P. C. Infrastructure P Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle 4, Jaipur

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

ITA 121/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 May 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

taxmann.com 178 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that section 43B(b) does not cover employees' contributions to PF, ESI, etc. deducted from salaries of employees and the allowance/ disallowance of the same has to be considered u/s 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) only ... observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court may be briefly enumerated as under: •Section 43B(b) does not cover employees' contributions to PF,ESI etc deducted by employer from salaries of employees. •The words "any sum payable by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution to any provident

Ernst & Youg Merchant Banking Services LLP, Mumbai vs. Asst. Comm of Income Tax, CPC, Karnataka

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

ITA 224/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

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

payment of employees’ provident fund by the assessee, wherein the assessee seems to 3 Ernst & Young Merchant Banking Services LLP have paid the employees contribution to PF beyond the due date prescribed under provident fund Act in eleven instances. The aggregate amount of the above said payments

S.M.S Exports, Delhi vs. CIT-24 New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1838/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmas.M.S Exports Vs. Cit-24 C-174, Okhla Industrial New Delhi Area Phase-1, New Delhi-110 020 Pan No. Aabfs 9700 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By -None- Revenue By Shri Kumar Parnav, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.05.2023

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

deposit of EPF & ESI dues. It is the contention of the assessee in the grounds that though there was delay in depositing the employees contribution to PF and ESI before the due date prescribed but however all the dues have been deposited with the appropriate authorities before the filing

M/S Ready Roti India Pvt. Ltd., F-28, Riico Industrial Area, Sare Khurd, Alwar vs. CPC, Bangalore/ ACIT/DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 437/JPR/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.1,21,09,240/- u/s 36(1)(va) on account of delayed payment of employees contribution towards PF, ESI & other welfare fund u/s 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act by not appreciating that this adjustment is not on account ... facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.1,05,76,000/- u/s 36(1)(va) on account of delayed payment of employees contribution towards PF, ESI & other welfare fund u/s 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act by not appreciating that this adjustment is not on account