“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

Krishna Prakashan Media Pvt Ltd, Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO, Ward 1(1)(3), Uttar Pradesh

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 2168/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Assessment Year : 2019-20 Krishna Prakashan Media Vs. Ito Pvt. Ltd., Ward – 1(1)(3), 11, Krishna House Uttar Pradesh Shivaji Road Meerut, Meerut-250 001 Pan No. Aaack 9668 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By --None-- Revenue By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 15.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.01.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi, No. Dated 01.08.2022 In Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1044403913(1), Relating To The A.Y. 2019-20 Passed Under Section 250 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under:- Krishna Prakashan Media Pvt. Ltd Vs. Ito 2

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

wherein AO disallowed the claim of Rs.3,44,271/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of late deposit of employees contribution of PF & ESI. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee filed an appeal before NFAC wherein it was inter alia submitted that the employees contribution ... made u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. It is the contention of the assessee that though there was delay in depositing the employees contribution to PF and ESI before the due date Krishna Prakashan Media Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO 4 prescribed but however all the dues have been deposited

Mgi Infra Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-16(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is 11

ITA 6500/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhary

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Jeetender Chand

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

listed at page 2 and 3 of the order. AO was of the view that on account of delay in deposit of employees contribution to PF & ESIC the amounts cannot be allowed as deduction. He therefore by invoking provision of 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) disallowed

O.S. Motors Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur` vs. Principal Commissioner of Income, Jodhpur

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

ITA 54/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur16 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmim/S. O.S. Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Pr. Cit Sainiks Motor Building, Chopasani Jodhpur-1 Road, Jodhpur-342001 (Raj) Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco 1896 R

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194HSection 263Section 36(1)(v)Section 40

view that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue on the following three issues:- (a) Payment of employees contribution of PF & ESI not disallowed u/s 36(1)(v) of the Act. (b) Non-disallowance of incentive payments made to employees ... made u/s 36(1)(v) of the Act in respect of payment of employees contribution to PF/ESI. The said provision states that the employees’ contribution of PF, ESI etc. shall be treated as income of the assessee and it will be allowed as deduction if it has been paid

Gannon Dunkerley & Co Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2228/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd, Dy. Cit, Circle-1(1)(1), 3Rd Floor, New Excelsior Aayakar Bhavan, Building Ak Nayak Marg, Fort, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 001. Pan No. Aaacg 1846 P Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Babulal Sharma, Ar : Revenue By Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao Deshmukh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/12/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Babulal Sharma, AR

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

Court judgment on this issue i.e., delayed payment of employees' contribution issue i.e., delayed payment of employees' contribution issue i.e., delayed payment of employees' contribution of PF dues. Gannon Dunkerlye & Co. Ltd. 9 7.12 7.12 7.12 But, But, But, the the the Finance Finance Finance

Sys Information Healthcare India Private Limited, Mysuru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1) & Tps, Mysore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1026/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

order of the AO. Against this the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The ld. AR submitted that the payment of employee contribution to PF though belated, but was before the due date of fling the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act and otherwise allowable ... judgment. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.” 8. In view of the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we hold that the employees contribution to PF should be remitted before the due date as per explanation to section 36(1)(va) i.e., on or before the due date under

M/S. Radisys India Limited (Formerly Known As Radisys India Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 190/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mahveer C Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Binod Kumar Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)

impugned judgment. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. 18.2 In view of the above decision by Hon’ble Supreme Court, we hold that the employees contribution to PF and ESI should be remitted before the due date as per explanation to section 36(1)(va) i.e. on or before

ACIT-13(1) (2), Mumbai vs. Oommen Chackalyil Chacko, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1620/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Kedar PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Santhil Kumaran

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ACIT

Legacy Global Projects Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 846/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Arvind S., CAFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

Appeals) that the provisions of section 143(1)(a) were not applicable in the additions made in the instant case i.e., payment of Employee contribution to PF paid within the due date for filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) and the Club expenditure. The assessee also submitted that ... made in the tax audit report and were not expenditure or addition to the total income. On merits, the assessee submitted that the employee contribution to PF is before the due date for filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) is an allowable expenditure by relying on the various

Pivotree Solutions India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Bridge Sgi Solutions India Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 799/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

both the assessment years. ITA Nos. 798 & 799/Bang/2022 Page 6 of 10 11. Before us, the ld. AR submitted that the payment of employee contribution to PF & ESI though belated, but was before the due date of fling the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act and otherwise ... taxmann.com 178 (SC) where the Apex Court has held that Section 43B(b) does not cover employees' contributions to PF,ESI etc deducted by employer from salaries of employees and that employees contribution has to be deposited within the due date u/s 36(1)(va) i.e. due dates under

Pivotree Solutions India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Bridge Sgi Solutions India Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 798/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Ramakrishnappa Nagaraj, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 795/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K R Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

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

disallowance towards employees contribution. Against this the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The ld. AR submitted that the payment of employee contribution to PF & ESI though belated, but was before the due date of fling the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act and otherwise allowable ... accordingly dismissed. Page 7 of 7 7. In view of the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we hold that the employees contribution to PF and ESI should be remitted before the due date as per Explanation to section 36(1)(va) i.e. on or before

Bangalore Dor Tech Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 826/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V P Pavankumar

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

Rs.43,00,150 u/s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] towards delayed remittance of employees contribution to PF and ESI. The CIT(Appeals), NFAC confirmed the order of the AO. Against this the assessee is in appeal before ... submitted that the payment of employee contribution to PF & ESI though belated by 15 days, but was before the due date of fling the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act and otherwise allowable u/s. 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act]. The ld. DR relied

Sri Rajanikanth Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 774/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Miss. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 36Section 43B

income determined u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act was on account of disallowance of Rs.30,68,795 being late remittance of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI under the respective Acts. The assessee filed a rectification application u/s 154 of the I.T.Act. The same was dismissed vide order dated ... date of filing of return under section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, it was submitted assessee is entitled to deduction of the employees’ contribution of PF and ESI having regard to the provision to section 43B of the Act. In this context, the assessee relied on the judgment

Muthyala Suryababu, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 771/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy H, ITP

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

alleged belated payment of PF and ESI. 2.3 The reason for making the disallowance was that the assessee did not remit the employees' contribution to PF and ESI within the due date specified under the respective Acts. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before ... Ld.CIT(A), it was submitted that the assessee remitted the employees contribution to PF and ESI before the due date of filing of the return u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court Pr.CIT vs. Hind Filter

Muthyala Suryababu, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 770/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy H, ITP

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S. Optimal Strategix Consulting Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 842/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

made on M/s. Optimal Strategix Consulting Private Limited, Bangalore Page 3 of 7 the ground that the employees contribution to PF and ESI has been paid by the assessee beyond the due date prescribed in the respective Acts. 7. The assessee challenged the above said addition by filing appeal ... Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before us. 8. The learned AR submitted that the assessee has remitted the employees contribution of PF & ESI before the due date prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act, even though the contributions were paid in few instances beyond the due date prescribed

Shri Umesh Raosaheb Pawar, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Thane

In the result, Ground No.2

ITA 1901/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha

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

Tribunal reads as follows:- "7. I have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. Admittedly, the assessee has not remitted the employees' contribution of PF of Rs.1,06,190/- and ESI of Rs.16,055/- totaling to Rs.1,22,245/- before the due date specified under the respective ... Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 408 (Kar.) has categorically held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of employees' contribution to PF and ESI provided the payment was made prior to the due date of filing of return of income

Bharat Silks, Bangalore vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 683/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

For Respondent: Shri Joseph Varghese

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

return was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T.Act. In the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the I.T.Act, the CPC disallowed the employees' contribution to PF and ESI to the tune of Rs. 62,61,999/-. The reason for making the disallowance was that the assessee did not remit ... employees' contribution to PF and ESI within the due date specified under the respective Acts. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A), it was submitted that the assessee remitted the employees contribution to PF and ESI before the due date of filing

M/S. Daxer Trading Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 565/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Shrenik Chordia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.R Narayan, Addl. CIT (DR)

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

sustaining the disallowances made u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act amounting to Rs.4,27,480/- on account of delayed remittances of employees' contribution towards PF and ESI but well before the due date of filing of the Return of Income. (Tax effect Rs. 1,07,584/-). 3. For that ... Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the delay in payment of employees contribution to PF beyond the due dates as prescribed u/s 36(1)(va) falls beyond the ambit of prima fade adjustments to be carried

M/S Athenahealth Technology Private Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 82/CHNY/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.82/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Athenahealth Technology The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Module 3 & 4, 9Th Floor Vs. Corporate Circle-1(1), S.P Infocity, Dr. Mgr Road, Chennai. Kandaanchanvadi, Perungudi, Chennai – 600 096. [Pan: Aafca-3257-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Sumeet Khurana, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 40ASection 40A(7)(a)Section 40A(7)(b)

have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the assessee has remitted the employees contribution to PF and ESI amounting to Rs. 5,15,978/- after the due date as prescribed under the respective statutes i.e., Provident Fund