“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

Rajesh Kumar, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 292/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

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

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S

Classic Display Systems Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax (CPC) Bengaluru, Bengaluru

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

ITA 3542/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Classic Display Systems Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Adit (Cpc), S 179/B, Panchsheel Park, New Bengaluru Delhi-110017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccc2109D

For Appellant: Shri Sanat Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

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

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S

Pradeep Kisanlal Boob, Nashik vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Nashik

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

ITA 189/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.189/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 134Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the adjustment of Rs.86,140 u/s 36(1)(va) in respect of delayed deposit of employees contribution to PF/ ESIC without appreciating that as on the date of passing the said intimation u/s 143(1), the impugned issue was certainly a debatable

Desai Infra Projects(I) Private Limited, Pune vs. PCIT, Central Pune, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1851/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. Pathank, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

1851/PUN./2024 Delight Dairy and Dairy Products P. Ltd. and (2) relating to disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) for delay in deposit of employees contribution to PF. 10. We find that the provision of Section 263 of the Act has direct bearing on the issue raised before us, therefore ... very same issue and finding of this Tribunal reads as under:- “18. So far as the second issue i.e. late payment of employees' contribution to PF and ESI is concerned, we find there is no dispute to the fact that the assessee has deposited the employees' contribution to PF

Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited, New Delhi vs. CIT Appeals-25, New Delhi

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 480/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Eagle Hunter Solutions Vs Commissioner Of Income Limited Tax (Appeals)-25 61C, Kalu Sarai, Sarvapriya New Delhi Vihar, New Delhi-110016 Pan: Aabce0565E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 270A(2)Section 270A(2)(a)Section 36(1)

1 Eagle Hunter Solutions Ltd. Vs. CIT(A) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘B’ NEW DELHI

Sansun Staffing Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 5037/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshsansun Staffing Solutions Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Income Tax Officer, B-102/2, East Of Kailash, South Ward-22(3), Delhi, Delhi-110065 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaics2876B Assessee By : Shri Sajeev Kumar, Ca Revenue By: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/05/2025

For Appellant: Shri Sajeev Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)

that the Learned AO based on the details reflected by the tax auditor in the tax audit report proceeded to make disallowance of employees contribution to PF and ESI which were alleged to be remitted beyond the due date prescribed under the respective Acts. It was submitted that

M-Five Security Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward -17 (1), Delhi

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

ITA 544/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.M-Five Security Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, 126, Greenview Apartment, Ward-17(1), Mandi Road, New Delhi Manglapuri, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccm2375B

For Appellant: Shri Naveen Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

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

materials available on record. At the outset, it is submitted by the ld AR that it is not in dispute that the employees’ contribution to PF and ESI were deposited by the assessee to the Government account beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective acts but well before

Indraprastha Logistics Private Limited, Delhi vs. AO, CPC Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 473/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanestha, Sr. DR

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

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. On perusal of the orders of the lower authorities, it is not in dispute that the employees’ contribution to PF and ESI were deposited by the assessee to the Government account beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective acts but well before

Indraprastha Logistics Private Limited, Delhi vs. AO, CPC Banglore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 471/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanestha, Sr. DR

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

Amj Land Holdings Ltd., Pune vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2415/PUN/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Amj Land Holdings Limited Asst. Director Of Income Tax, Vs. Thergaon, Pune – 411033 Cpc, Bengaluru Pan: Aabcp0310Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 05-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 115JSection 154Section 36(1)(va)

circumstances of the case, the ld, CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that there was a small delay in making payment of employees contribution to PF for the month of April, 2020 since the Company's operations were located at Pune, which place was severely hit by corona virus pandemic ... facts prevailing at that time i.e. Covid period there cannot be any adverse effect on the assessee of not depositing the employees’ contribution to PF and ESI within the meaning of section 36(1)(va) of the Act when the relevant enactment itself had given a waiver from levy

Up Government Employees Welfare, Lucknow vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi

In the result appeals in ITA No

ITA 743/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.743 & 746/Lkw/2024 & Ita No. 30/Lkw/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 U.P. Government Employees Vs. Assessing Officer, Nfac Welfare, Lucknow Pan:Aaatu0957A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 15.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench.: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 23.10.2024, 28.10.2024 & 2.01.2024 In The Appeals Preferred Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3), The Penalty Order Under Section 271Aac(1) & The Penalty Order Under Section 270A. The Grounds Of Appeal In These Three Appeals Are As Under:-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234ASection 270ASection 271ASection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 68

Income tax act. 8. That the Learned Commissioner of Income tax (A) erred in law and on facts and add the employees contribution to PF amounting of Rs. 16263564/- as per the provisions of section 2(24)(x) read with section

Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. Staff Provident Fund, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 34(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2464/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. Staff Ito, Ward - 34(1), Provident Fund Aaykar Bhawan, 110, Bammer Lawrie House, 21, N.S. Shantipally, Em Bypass, Kolkata, Vs. Road, Bbd Bag, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700107 West Bengal, 700001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatb8655N Assessee By : Shri Akkaldudhewala, Ar Revenue By : Shri Madhumita Das, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri AkkalDudhewala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhumita Das, DR

Section 10(25)Section 10(35)Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 15B

facts by recording wrong finding in the appellate order that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to pay the employees contribution to PF and ESI within the prescribed time under the respective Acts. 05. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record ... which was affirmed by ld. CIT (A) upon wrong understanding of the issue to be relating to non-payment by the assessee of employees contribution of PF and ESI within the prescribed time limit. In our opinion this is a factual mistake on the part of the assessee while filing

Santhi Foundries Pvt Ltd, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Corporate Ward 2, Coimbatore

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

ITA 80/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 36(1)(va)

effective ground of appeal in this appeal of assessee against the confirmation of disallowance of Rs. 3,02,740/- towards employees contribution of PF & ESI u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) as quantified in the audit report, without verifying that PF contribution ... delayed. 3. The CPC has made the disallowance of Rs.3,02,740/- u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of employees contribution to PF & ESI, based on the audit report, which indicated that the payment was made beyond the due date. The assessee before Ld. Addl

Staunch Business Solutions, Mohali vs. ITO Ward 6 (1), Chandigarh (ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru, Chandigarh

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 721/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vineet Krishan (Adv.) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

noted delay of 26 days in the appeal which stand condoned. 2. From the facts, it emerges that the assessee failed to deposit employees contribution to PF / ESI by due dates as specified under those acts. The same was reported by Tax Auditor. Accordingly, CPC added the same

M/S Giriraj Enterprises, Pune vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1497/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

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

appreciate that there was no delay on the part of the assessee in making the payment of Rs.9,03,700/- on account of employees contribution to PF and hence, no disallowance was warranted u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4] The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that ... letter addressed by the assessee to the Regional Commissioner, the Employee’s Provident Fund stating that they could not deposit the employees’ contribution to PF before 15th June, 2021 due to certain technical glitches. Referring to page 8 of the paper book, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew

M/S Sargam Retails Private Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1496/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

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

appreciate that there was no delay on the part of the assessee in making the payment of Rs.1,43,232/- on account of employees contribution to PF and hence, no disallowance was warranted u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4] The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that ... letter addressed by the assessee to the Regional Commissioner, the Employee’s Provident Fund stating that they could not deposit 5 the employees’ contribution to PF before 15th June, 2021 due to certain technical glitches. Referring to page 8 of the paper book, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew

A K Enterprises, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, accordingly, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 181/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh N. Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

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

assessee is not sustainable. 6. Considering the rival submissions, we note that CPC has made disallowance towards delay in remittance of employees contribution to PF & ESI u/s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. This issue has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court

A K Enterprises, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, accordingly, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 180/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh N. Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

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

Purpletalk India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 193/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA PVSS PrasadFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234ASection 37(1)Section 92C

making addition ITA.No.193/Hyd./2021 towards TP adjustment of Rs.6,91,69,741/-; addition of Rs.9,81,291/- towards employees contribution to PF & ESI u/sec.36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and also addition towards interest paid on TDS default for Rs.3 ... transaction of the assessee-company with it’s AE. The assessee had also challenged additions made by the Assessing Officer towards disallowance of employees contribution towards PF & ESI in terms of section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. The assessee had also challenged addition

Talentpro India Hr Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2722/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2721 & 2722/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Talentpro India Hr Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 30, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Income Tax, Chennai 600 008. Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aabcp9823A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Sanjeev Aditya, C.A. (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R. Raghunathaboth The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different But Identical Orders Of The Addl/Jcit(A), Thiruvanantpuram Both Dated 28.08.2024 For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20. 2. Since Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear The Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Aditya, C.A. (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &

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

nature and since there was no specific direction in the judgement to apply retrospectively, the assessee is eligible to claim deduction of employees contribution to PF & ESIC, which was not remitted within the due date specified by the statute. 9. We have perused the decision in the case