“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

Sri Chamundeswari Sugars Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 355/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CA

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

were 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.64,52,229/- for A.Y. 2018-19 and Rs.89,95,797/- for A.Y. 2019- 20. The reason ... 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 appeals before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A), it was submitted that the assessee remitted the employees contribution

Tuff Guard Force Private Limited, Ghatkopar West vs. CIT(Appeals) NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 2450/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Tuff Guard Force Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of Income 207, Kails Esplanade, Lbs Marg, Vs. Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Ghatkopar (W), Delhi. Mumbai 400 086 Pan No.Aabcb4892K Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri D.B. Shah. Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Kumar (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 21.06.2022. Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2022. O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, A.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dt.28.01.2021 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Kumar (D.R.)For Respondent: Shri D.B. Shah

Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 438Section 43B

assessee has failed to explain the inconsistency communicated by the CPC, Bangalore and disallowed the claim of the assessee. In respect of employee contribution to PF of Rs.12,58,636, it was submitted that an amount of Rs.6,47,584 was already paid before the due date of filing Return ... supporting material to be furnished by the assessee during the course of set aside proceedings. Accordingly, the issue of disallowance of service tax, employees contribution to PF and payment of professional tax are restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating afresh after affording due opportunity

Jagadish Reddy, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 278/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh T.R., A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Srinivas Rao Bandaru, D.R

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

wherein the disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act was made on 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. 3. The assessee challenged the above said additions by filing appeals ... Aggrieved, the assessee has filed these appeals before us. 4. 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

Jagadish Reddy, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 277/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh T.R., A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Srinivas Rao Bandaru, D.R

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

Accenture Solutions Pvt Ltd. (Asol) As A Successor to Accenture Serivces Pvt Ltd (Aspl), Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 14 (1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 8008/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Accenture Solutions The Dy. Commissioner O Pvt. Ltd. (‘Asol’), Income Tax, (As A Successor To Circle 14(1)(1), Accenture Services Pvt. 475, Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd. (‘Aspl’) Which Has M.K. Road, Merged Into Asol With An Mumbai - 400020 Effective Date Of 1 Vs. December 2016) Plant 3, Godrej & Boyce Complex, Phirojshah Nagar, Vikhroli West, Off L.B.S Marg, Mumbai – 400 079 Pan: Aacca8997K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Patil Transporters Ltd. 368 ITR 749 by confirming the order passed by the Tribunal that deduction claimed by the assessee on account of employees contribution to PF & ESIC well before the due date of filing return of income is allowable deduction. 20. Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in case ... Sweets India P. Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra) also decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee by holding that the payment of employees contribution qua PF & ESIC if made before the due date of filing of return of income, the same is allowable deduction as per provisions of Section

Neev Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 57/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, D.R

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

Patil Transporters Ltd. 368 ITR 749 by confirming the order passed by the Tribunal that deduction claimed by the assessee on account of employees contribution to PF & ESIC well before the due date of filing return of income is allowable deduction. 9. Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in case ... Sweets India P. Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra) also decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee by holding that the payment of employees contribution qua PF & ESIC if made before 6 M/s. Neev Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. the due date of filing of return of income, the same is allowable

M/S Total Environment Building Systems Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 46/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT DR

Section 250Section 37Section 40Section 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

Total Environment Building Systems Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 45/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT DR

Section 250Section 37Section 40Section 43B

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Total Environment Building Systems Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 40/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT DR

Section 250Section 37Section 40Section 43B

Dy.CIT 13(2) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sahakar Global Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 46/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

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

Further, he relied upon the order of Assessing Officer. 5. The Ld.AR, on the other hand, contended that the employees’ contribution to PF and ESIC was paid before the due date for filing of return and relied upon the judgement of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case ... Ld.CIT(A). 6. Having heard the rival submissions of the representatives and perused the materials on record, we observe that the employees contribution to PF & ESIC was paid beyond the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts but was paid before the due date for filing the return of income

DCIT 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sodexo Technical Services India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 508/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

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

wherein the above said disallowance was made u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act on 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. 2 M/s. Sodexo Technical Services India ... DCIT (2014)(43 taxmann.com 33)(Kar), wherein the Ho’ble High Court has held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI provided that the payments were made prior to the due date of filing of the return of income

M/S. Ujjain Waste Management Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. WD 15 (3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2083/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

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

said disallowance was made u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act on the ground that the 2 M/s. Ujjain Waste Management Pvt. Ltd. employees contribution to PF and ESI has been paid by the assessee beyond the due date prescribed in the respective Acts. 3. The assessee challenged the above ... DCIT (2014)(43 taxmann.com 33)(Kar), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI provided that the payments were made prior to the due date of filing of the return of income

M/S. Kalyan Gas Services, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Thane

ITA 2028/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, D.R

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

partnership firm engaged in the business of sale of gas cylinders. During the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer (AO)-CPC, Bangalore has disallowed employees’ contribution to PF and ESIC paid by the assessee during the year under consideration, after the due date prescribed under the PF/ESIC Act. Consequently ... light of the facts and circumstances of the case and case law relied upon. 7. Undisputedly, the assessee has made payment towards the employees contribution of PF and ESIC after due date prescribed in the relevant Act which is tabulated for ready perusal as under: Month Sum received Due date

Gea Process Engineering (India) P.Ltd, Gujrat vs. ITO, Mumbai

ITA 4338/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit, M/S. Gea Process Circle- 2(2)(1), Engineering (India) Pvt. Room No.545, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Savli Road, M.K. Road, P.O. Dumad, Mumbai - 400020 Baroda, Gujarat- 391740 Pan: Aaacl0566H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mishra, D.R

Section 2(24)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

disallowance of Rs.22,06,711/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act on the ground that the amount in question being employees contribution to PF has been paid late after the due date as per the provisions of the PF Act. However, the Ld. CIT(A) decided the issue ... disallowance by the AO of the belated payment of employees contribution to EPF of Rs.22,06,711/-. The AO had disallowed such employees contribution to PF on the ground that the same had been paid beyond the due dates mentioned in the provisions of the Provident Fund Act. However

DCIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Gea Process Engineering ()I) P.Ltd, Gujrat

ITA 4155/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mishra, D.R

Section 2(24)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

G R Chandrashekar Naidu, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 249/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms.Sumangala Ranga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT-DR

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

account of disallowance of Rs.22,13,155 (for A.Y.2018-2019) and Rs.20,73,820 (for A.Y. 2019-2020) being late remittance of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI under the respective Acts. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeals before the First Appellate Authority. It was contended that assessee has paid ... 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

G R Chandrashekar Naidu, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 248/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms.Sumangala Ranga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT-DR

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

M/S. Super Tiles & Marbles Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1950/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

assessee. We have heard ld. DR and perused the materials available on record. It is not in dispute that assessee had remitted the employees’ contribution of PF & ESI with much before the due date of filing of return u/s.139(1) of the Act, though the same has been remitted belatedly ... Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd., reported in 368 ITR 749 had held that employees contribution to PF & ESI if remitted within the due date prescribed u/s.139(1) of the Act for filing the income tax returns, would be allowed as deduction u/s.43B

Swaroopsing Bhadursingh Rathore, Thane vs. Asstt.Director of Income Tax, CPC, Banglore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1827/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is not in dispute that assessee had remitted the employees’ contribution of PF & ESI with much before the due date of filing of return u/s.139(1) of the Act, though the same has been remitted belatedly beyond ... Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd., reported in 368 ITR 749 had held that employees contribution to PF & ESI if remitted within the due date prescribed u/s.139(1) of the Act for filing the income tax returns, would be allowed as deduction u/s.43B

Swaroopsingh Bhadursingh Rathore, Thane vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - CPC, Banglore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1826/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A