“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

Sudhakar Arora, Delhi vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4584/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

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

erred in confirming erroneous action of Id. AO of making total additions of Rs. 7,22,060/- on account of late deposit of employees contribution towards PF & ESIC without appreciating fact that most of the month's contributions were deposited on due dates and challan also generated, however ... sustaining the addition of Rs.4,20,77,998/- made u/s.36(1)(va) in the intimation dated 24/12/2019 without appreciating the fact that employees contribution to PF and ESI are treated as 'Deemed Income' u/s.2(24)(x) in the books of accounts and not being deposited within the due dates specified

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Adaab Hotels Ltd, Delhi

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

ITA 4677/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit, Vs. Adaab Hotels Limited, New Delhi. 81, Adchini, Sr. Aurobindo Marg, Delhi – 110 016. (Pan : Aabca0850G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate Shri Parth Singhal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ramesh Chand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.05.2025 Date Of Order : 06.08.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 09.08.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs 1,70,52,504/- Made U/S 68 Of The Act Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Company Has Failed To Produce The Relevant Document As Required By The Assessing Officer During The Assessment Proceedings. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,70,52,504/- Made U/S 68 Of The Act By Ao, On The Basis Of Fresh/New Evidences Produced By The Assessee During The Appellate Proceedings Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessee Has Failed To Produce

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Chand, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 68

wrongly claimed set off of unabsorbed depreciation, accordingly restricted the unabsorbed depreciation to the extent of Rs.57,64,607/- and also disallowed employees contribution to PF and ESI. 3 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and filed detailed submissions. For the sake of brevity

Shree Society, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 226/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.226/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Society Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward 1(5) Pan:Aanas1911Q Visakhapatnam (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri I Rama Sastry, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30/03/2024 Of The Learned Pr.Cit Passed U/S 263 R.W.S. 254 Of The Act For The A.Y 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri I Rama Sastry, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Assessing Officer issued notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1). The Assessing Officer has not even raised the issue of belated payment of employees contribution towards PF and ESI but the notice u/s 142(1) was issued only regarding the excess claim of ESI and PF in contravention of Rule ... Rules which restricts the claim only 27% of the salaries. The assessee in the reply accepted the erroneous reporting of the employees contribution to PF & ESI in Form 3CED. Thus, it is manifest from the record that neither the Assessing Officer raised any query, nor the assessee filed any details

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 813/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

such directions is relevant and how assessing officer has to consider the same while passing appeal effect order. 8. Disallowance of payment of employees contribution to PF to the tune of Rs. 22,284/- and to ESI to the tune of Rs.2,114/- made within the grace period or delayed

Yardi Software India Private Limited, Pune vs. Assessing Officer, Jurisdiction Circle 12, Pune, Income Tax Department

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

ITA 549/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.549/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Yardi Software India Private Vs. Acit, Circle-12, Pune. Limited, Second Floor, Sigma House, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune City, Pune, Shivaji Housing Society S.O.- 411016. Pan : Aaccr8107N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Miss Chaitee LondheFor Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

delay of one-day was duly reported by the auditor in the audit report of the assessee and the CPC accordingly disallowed the employees contribution to PF of ₹ 38,80,972/- under section 36(1)(va) of the IT act on account of the delay of one-day. 4.2. Learned

DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Creamline Dairy Products Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 1183/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, K C Devdas And CA C Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: Sri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80J

During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has made three additions i.e., (i) by disallowing claim of the appellant company towards employees contribution to PF by invoking provisions of sec.36(1)(va) of the Act at Rs.22,75,083/-; (ii) disallowance u/sec.14A of the Act at Rs.5 ... ./2024 35. The first issue that came-up for consideration from ground nos.2 and 3 of appellant company’s appeal is, disallowance of employees contribution to PF u/sec.36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 36. The facts with regard to the impugned dispute are that, while processing

Creamline Dairy Products Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 1157/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, K C Devdas And CA C Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: Sri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80J

Creamline Dairy Products Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 1156/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, K C Devdas And CA C Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: Sri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80J

M/S Rajasthan Knowledge Corporation Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

10. In view of the above discussion and findings, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A) is set aside whereby disallowance of bonus to the tune of Rs

ITA 279/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, While Challenging Order Dated 25.07.2022 Issued U/S 154 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Came To Be Dismissed, While Observing As Under:- “5.6 In View Of The Above, Mandatory Condition Of Making The Payment Of The Employees Contribution To The Pf & Esi Funds Within 15 Days Of The Close Of Every Month, Has Not Been Fulfilled By The Appellant So As To Be Entitled For Claim Of Deduction U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act. Accordingly, The Ao’S Action Of Disallowing The Amount On Account Of Disallowance Of Bonus Amount Of Rs. 14,03.,538/- & 2 M/S Rajasthan Knowledge Corporation Ltd., Jaipur. Employees Contrition To Pf Of Rs. 5,172/- Is Hereby Confirmed & Grounds Of Appeal Filed By The Appellant Are Treated As Dismissed.”

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

made certain additions, including disallowance of a sum of Rs. 14,03.538/- towards bonus amount and a sum of Rs. 5,172/- towards employees contribution to PF, which was deposited late. 6. The assessee has challenged the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A), on the ground that disallowance

Babu Bhura Varchand, Bhuj vs. The Income Tax Officer, Bhuj-1, Bhuj

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

ITA 43/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 43/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19) Babu Bhura Varchand Income Tax Officer, 124, Ram Krishna Nagar, Bhuj Vs. Ward-3, Gandhidham (Bhuj-1), H.O. Bhuj, Kachchh – 370 001 Income Tax Officer, Bhuj, Nr. Leva Patel Hospital, Mundra Road, Bhuj – 370 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aixpv 1911 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Apurva Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 154Section 250

admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication on merit. 6. On merit, the short issue, which falls for consideration is that Employees` Contribution to PF, which is paid by the assessee, within the grace period allowed by the PF Act, should be allowed to the assessee. The Ld. Counsel ... assessee argued that no doubt, late payment of the Employees contribution to PF, is covered against the assessee, by the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT-I, in Civil Appeal No. 2833 of 2016, dated 12/10/2022. However, some

Shri Ganesh Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd, Kolhapur vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Kolhapur

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

ITA 1232/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1232/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1232/PUN/2025

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Majestic Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA 3115/Del/2014 for AY 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 3115/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 153ASection 37(1)

Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is challenging the disallowance made 24. by the ld AO on account of late payment of employees contribution towards PF & ESI contribution in the sum of Rs. 53,042/-. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on 25. record ... except with variance in figures. 35. Ground No. 9 raised by the revenue is challenging the deletion of disallowance of employees contribution to PF & ESI in the sum of Rs. 2,47,474/- which is identical to Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee for AY 2008-09. Hence

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Majestic Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA 3115/Del/2014 for AY 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 1748/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 153ASection 37(1)

M/S. Majestic Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA 3115/Del/2014 for AY 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 1623/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 153ASection 37(1)

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Rajat Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA 3115/Del/2014 for AY 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 3525/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 153ASection 37(1)

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Majestic Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA 3115/Del/2014 for AY 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 3289/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 153ASection 37(1)

M/S Majestic Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA 3115/Del/2014 for AY 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 3233/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 153ASection 37(1)

Shree Cement Limited, Bangur Nagar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

ITA 1517/JPR/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dilip B. Desai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 254Section 36(1)(va)Section 80Section 801A

certain adjustments out of which the assessee challenged the following adjustment in this appeal; a) Disallowance on account of delay in deposit of Employees contribution to PF and ESI u/s. 36(1)(va) (Rs. 1,59,50,882). During the previous year the assessee deposited employees’ contribution to Provident Fund ... /448 ITR 518 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that Section 43B(b) of the I.T. Act 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

A2Z Infraservices Limited, Haryana vs. DCIT Central Circle 27, Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 72/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम A2Z Infra Services Limited Dcit, O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Central Circle-2, Arjun Nagar, Dlf Phase-1, Shankar Chowk, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana. Udyog Vihar, Sector-19, Gurugram, Haryana. Pan No.Aahca0139L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम A2Z Infra Services Limited Dcit, O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Central Circle-27, Arjun Marg, Dlf Qe S.O., New Delhi. Sikanderpur, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No.Aahca0139L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234ASection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

ground no.2 of grounds of appeal for the AY 2019-20 submitted that the disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) in respect of employees contribution to PF & ESI cannot be subject matter of disallowance while processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted ... were passed on 28.03.2019 and 07.07.2020 for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2019-20 respectively by the CPC disallowing employees contribution towards PF & ESI and whereas the decision in the case of Checkmate Services was rendered much later on 12.10.2022 and therefore the decision of the Hon’ble Chattisgarh

A2Z Infraservices Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 970/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234ASection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)