“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

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

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

ITA 2721/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

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

Dharrit Shah, Pune vs. ACIT Cir-6 Pune, Pune

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

ITA 2260/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2260/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Vishal A. Makawane

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 41(1)Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL

Sbw Udyog Limited, Prayagraj vs. DCIT, Cir-1, Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 27/ALLD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad13 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh.Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.2021-22 Sbw Udyog Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 44, Thornhill Road, Prayagraj Tax, Circle-1, Prayagraj Pan:Aadcs2883B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. N.C. Agrawal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 .03.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 31.01.2024, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Cpc Bengaluru, Under Section, 143(1) Dated 17.10.2022. Subsequently, The Said Appeal Was Migrated To The Nfac & Later On, The Appeal Proceedings Were Transferred To The Additional / Jcit(A), Aurangabad, Who Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Because, Income Tax Department, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India Has Observed In The Notice Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Reads As Under:- "The Income Tax Department Recognizes & Is Sensitive To The Hardships Being Faced By Taxpayers In Coping With The Challenges Posed By Covid-19 Pandemic." Consequently, Appeal Is Liable To Be Allowed.

For Appellant: Sh. N.C. Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

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

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABADBENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SH.SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y.2021-22 SBW

Mfa Capital Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT- Circle 10(2)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 6403/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: filing return of income u/s.139(1);

For Appellant: Shri Chetna BohraFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

proceedings and the same is bad in law, void-ab-initio; 2. The denial of the claim of expenses for employees for employees contribution to PF and ESIC amounting to INR.54,767/- on account of payment made beyond the due date as referred to in section

Infoanalytica Consulting Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the penalty u/s

ITA 1592/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)Section 40

course of assessment proceedings, the AO has made the following additions. i. Addition of Rs.2,35,839/- on account of late payment of Employees Contribution to PF & ESI. ii. Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act of s.68,277/- Accordingly, the AO has recorded satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings ... addition of Rs.2,35,839/- on account of disallowance for late payment of Infoanalytica Consuling Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2017-18 - 4– Employee Contribution to PF & ESI and Rs.68,227/- on account of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Assessing officer passed the penalty order

Diebold Nixdorf India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Diebold Systems Private Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6136/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(ea)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

claimed deduction on account of payment made towards employee’s contribution to PF and ESIC. On further verification, he noticed that payment towards employees contribution to PF & ESIC was not made within the due date as provided u/s. 36(1)(va), of the Act. Thus, he treated such contribution made ... perused the materials on record. We have also applied our mind on the decision relied upon. Factually, there is no dispute that employees contribution towards PF & ESIC were not deposited in the respective accounts within the stipulated period provided u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act read with the provisions

Diebold Nixdorf India Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6135/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(ea)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

M/S Varsha Construction, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 5/Rpr/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Varsha Construction, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Second Floor-25, 26, Millenium Plaza, S Tax, Circle-1(1), Central Revenue Raipur-492 001, Chhattisgarh Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, C.G.. Pan: Aaefv 8399 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""थ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Tarannum Verma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2025 : 22.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Mr. Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Tarannum Verma, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 249(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

settled position of law, we are of the considered view that no distinction is to be drawn between the employers as well as employees contribution to PF and ESI, as both are covered u/s 43B of the Act. 11. Before parting qua the aforesaid issue in hand, we think ... assessee before us, i.e, for A.Y 2011-12. Accordingly, drawing support from the aforementioned judicial pronouncements, we, herein conclude, that as the employees contributions to PF and ESI of Rs.2,88,976/-was deposited by the assessee before the “due date” of filing of its return of income

K Patel International, Ankleshwar vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Bharuch

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

ITA 785/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.785/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) K. Patel International, Vs. The Acit, Residential Plot No.64, New Circle – 2, Colony, Valia Road, Gidc, Bharuch Ankleshwar – 393002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfk7262Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh Modiani, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/01/2025

Section 250

number of times and prays that the disallowance be deleted. 6. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.47,646/- being Employees Contribution to PF paid late. Your Appellant submits that the disallowance is made without considering written submissions filed a number of times and prays that

Smt. Usha Sharma, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 480/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

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

R K Swamy Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1427/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1427/Chny/2024 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri L.Shibi, C.A HIFor Respondent: Shri Phanidharan, JCIT

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

computation of income by the Appellant. 3. The Assessing officer (CPC) in the 143(1) Intimation dated 21.02.2020 had made a disallowance of Employees Contribution to PF and ESI u/s 36(1) (va) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,77,85,122/- on the ground that there has been ... thus warranting the interference of this Hon'ble Tribunal. 4. The learned CIT(A) has failed to consider that the disallowance of Employees Contribution to PF and ESI u/s 36(1) (va) amounting to Rs.1,77,85,122/- made the Assessing Officer under section