← 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

M/S. Sincetele Info-Solutiions Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst/Dy/ Dir of Income Tax CPC, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1985/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Pariasamy
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

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

Paper Recycle, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1960/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri R.D. KhonaFor Respondent: Smt Shreekala Pardeshi
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

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

Raman & Weil Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1946/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Surendra NijsureFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

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

Medihal Krishnaiah Raghavendra, Kolar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 52/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year:2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh G., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act was made on Medihal Krishnaiah Raghavendra, Kolar Page 2 of 6 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 ... Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before me. 4. The Ld. A.R. 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 contribution was paid in few instances beyond the due date prescribed

Kalkura Refrigeration and Kitchen Equipments Private Limited, Udupi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Panaji

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly

ITA 320/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Krishnamurthy Shibaraya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

next ground in all these appeals is with regard to the disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act on the ground that employees’ contribution towards PF & ESI has been paid by the assessee beyond the due date prescribed in the respective Act though it was paid within ... Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (supra)¸ had held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI provided that the payment was made prior to the due date of filing of the return of income

Kalkura Refrigeration and Kitchen Equipments Private Limited, Udupi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Panaji

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly

ITA 319/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Krishnamurthy Shibaraya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

next ground in all these appeals is with regard to the disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act on the ground that employees’ contribution towards PF & ESI has been paid by the assessee beyond the due date prescribed in the respective Act though it was paid within ... Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (supra)¸ had held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI provided that the payment was made prior to the due date of filing of the return of income

Kalkura Refrigeration and Kitchen Equipments Private Limited, Udupi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Panaji

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly

ITA 318/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Krishnamurthy Shibaraya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

next ground in all these appeals is with regard to the disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act on the ground that employees’ contribution towards PF & ESI has been paid by the assessee beyond the due date prescribed in the respective Act though it was paid within ... Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (supra)¸ had held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI provided that the payment was made prior to the due date of filing of the return of income

Kalkura Refrigeration and Kitchen Equipments Private Limited, Udupi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Panaji

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly

ITA 317/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Krishnamurthy Shibaraya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

next ground in all these appeals is with regard to the disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act on the ground that employees’ contribution towards PF & ESI has been paid by the assessee beyond the due date prescribed in the respective Act though it was paid within ... Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (supra)¸ had held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI provided that the payment was made prior to the due date of filing of the return of income

Kalkura Refrigeration and Kitchen Equipments Private Limited, Udupi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Panaji

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly

ITA 316/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Krishnamurthy Shibaraya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

next ground in all these appeals is with regard to the disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act on the ground that employees’ contribution towards PF & ESI has been paid by the assessee beyond the due date prescribed in the respective Act though it was paid within ... Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (supra)¸ had held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI provided that the payment was made prior to the due date of filing of the return of income

Kalkura Refrigeration and Kitchen Equipments Private Limited, Udupi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Panaji

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly

ITA 315/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Krishnamurthy Shibaraya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

next ground in all these appeals is with regard to the disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act on the ground that employees’ contribution towards PF & ESI has been paid by the assessee beyond the due date prescribed in the respective Act though it was paid within ... Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (supra)¸ had held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI provided that the payment was made prior to the due date of filing of the return of income

Kalkura Refrigeration and Kitchen Equipments Private Limited, Udupi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly

ITA 230/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Krishnamurthy Shibaraya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

next ground in all these appeals is with regard to the disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act on the ground that employees’ contribution towards PF & ESI has been paid by the assessee beyond the due date prescribed in the respective Act though it was paid within ... Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (supra)¸ had held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI provided that the payment was made prior to the due date of filing of the return of income

Sri Peddanna Suresh, Shivamoga vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shivamogga

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

ITA 627/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year:2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
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 addition by filing appeal before ... Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before me. 4. The Ld. A.R. 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 contribution was paid in few instances beyond the due date prescribed

Bloom Systems Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 6(1) (4), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2348/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Love Kumar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36Section 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

Sunlight Machine Tools, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 47/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: None eFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

after perusing the material on record. 3. The only issue in these appeals is regarding disallowance of delayed payment of employee contribution to PF and ESI u/s. 43B r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act by the revenue authorities. 4. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business ... disallowed a sum of Rs.3.04,589 and Rs.3,20,895 for AYs 2018-19 & 2019-20 respectively on account of belated remittance of employees contribution to PF and ESI. The CIT(Appeals), NFAC confirmed the order of the AO. Against this the assessee is in appeals before

Sunlight Machine Tools, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 46/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: None eFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

after perusing the material on record. 3. The only issue in these appeals is regarding disallowance of delayed payment of employee contribution to PF and ESI u/s. 43B r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act by the revenue authorities. 4. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business ... disallowed a sum of Rs.3.04,589 and Rs.3,20,895 for AYs 2018-19 & 2019-20 respectively on account of belated remittance of employees contribution to PF and ESI. The CIT(Appeals), NFAC confirmed the order of the AO. Against this the assessee is in appeals before

Alert Manpower, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 36/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: None eFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

delay in filing these appeals is condoned. 4. The only issue in this appeal is regarding disallowance of delayed payment of employee contribution to PF and ESI u/s. 43B r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act by the revenue authorities. 5. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged ... Rs.8,55,212 and 8,95,198 for AYs 2018-19 & 2019-20 respectively on account of belated remittance of employees contribution to PF and ESI. The CIT(Appeals), NFAC confirmed the order of the AO. Against this the assessee is in appeals before Tribunal. 6. The ld. DR supported

Alert Manpower, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 35/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: None eFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

delay in filing these appeals is condoned. 4. The only issue in this appeal is regarding disallowance of delayed payment of employee contribution to PF and ESI u/s. 43B r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act by the revenue authorities. 5. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged ... Rs.8,55,212 and 8,95,198 for AYs 2018-19 & 2019-20 respectively on account of belated remittance of employees contribution to PF and ESI. The CIT(Appeals), NFAC confirmed the order of the AO. Against this the assessee is in appeals before Tribunal. 6. The ld. DR supported

Rajkumar Laxminarayan Kanojiya, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-26(3) (6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed and the orders of the authority below are set aside

ITA 1617/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai02 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: The Itat.

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

under : 1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO of disallowing employees contribution to PF, ESIC and MLWF of Rs.18,31,226/-u/s 36(1)(va). 2. Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action

Pravin Electricals Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1958/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 1958 & 1959/Mum/2021 (A.Ys: 2017-18 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Mr.R.D. Khona.ARFor Respondent: Mr. Love Kumar.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 36Section 36(1)

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

Mec Elec Industrial Services Private Limited, Thane vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1858/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Ravi K. Mulchandani, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh, Sr. A.R. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

under: - “5.6.1 This ground relates to addition of Rs. 11,03,233/- u/s 36(1)(va) on account of late payment of employees contribution to PF. During the appellate proceeding it has been contended that the same are paid before due date of filing of return. Relying on the case