← All Phrases

“specified fund”

Chapter III - Incomes Not IncludedSection 10(4D)Section 10(4D) / Rule 21AK63 judgments

The decision most relied on for specified fund is 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises (298 ITR 141), cited in 706 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on specified fund

279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises
298 ITR 141 · 2008 · High Court
706
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund or ESI, even if deposited after the due date specified in the respective welfare statutes, are allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) if paid before the due date for filing the income-tax return. This judgment aligns the treatment of employee contributions with employer contributions under Section 43B.

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).

M/s Mahadev Cold Storage v. Jurisdictional AO
43 Taxmann.com 33 · 2014 · High Court
262
citing judgments

Employees' contributions to welfare funds are an allowable deduction if paid before the due date for filing the income-tax return under section 139(1), even if the payment is made beyond the due date specified by the respective welfare fund Acts, as per the provisions of section 43B.

CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd.
242 ITR 114 · 2000 · High Court
238
citing judgments

Employee contributions to welfare funds, such as provident fund or ESI, are deductible under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act if paid before the due date for filing the return of income, even if paid after the due date specified in the respective welfare fund statute.

CIT v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited
366 ITR 1 · 2014 · High Court
206
citing judgments

Employees' contribution towards Provident Fund (PF) and Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) is allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B if deposited before the due date of filing the income tax return, even if deposited after the expiry of the statutory time period specified in the applicable fund's statute.

Bombay in CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd.
53 Taxmann.com 141 · 2015 · High Court
160
citing judgments

The Bombay High Court holds that employees' contributions to provident fund and ESIC, though paid beyond the due dates specified in the respective welfare legislations, are allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) if they are paid before the due date for furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act.

Sagun Foundry Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
145 DTR 265 · 2017 · High Court
152
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI are allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B if paid before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1). This applies even if paid after the due date specified under the respective fund's statute.

Revenue. 15. In CIT v. Dharmendra Sharma
297 ITR 320 · 2008 · High Court
88
citing judgments

Employees' contributions to provident fund or ESI, even if deposited after the due date specified under the respective Acts, are allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) if paid before the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1).

Judgments citing specified fund

Vimal Coal Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1446/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1446/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Vimal Coal Pvt.Ltd. The Dy.Cit 503, Addpr Aspire बनाम / Circle-4(1)(1) Near Jahanvee Restaurant V/S. Ahmedabad University Road To Panjrapole Road (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Ahmedabad - 380 009 (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabcv 4259 J Assessee By: Ms. Priyanka Sajnani, Ar On Behalf Of Shri Sunil Maloo, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing 23/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 25/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)"] Dated 10.06.2024 For The

For Appellant: Ms. Priyanka Sajnani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR
Section 135Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80G(2)(iiihk)Section 80G(5)

iiihk) or (iiihl) and there is no express bar under section 80G on claiming deduction of CSR-related donations, except to the two specified funds. The assessee placed reliance on the following judicial precedents: Aia Engineering Ltd. Vs. PCIT – ITA Nos.309 & 310/Ahd/2024. Power Mech Projects Ltd. Vs. DCIT

Gateway Office Parks Priovate Limitedi, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Cicle-6(1), Chennai

ITA 617/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.617/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2015-16 Gateway Office Parks Private Limited, Block No.A6, Ground Floor, No.16, Gst Road, Perungalathur, Chennai-600 063. [Pan: Aajcs8198P] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-6(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri S.Ananthan, Advocate (Virtual). Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit 22.01.2025 19.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/M/250/2022-23/1050825008(1) Dated 16.03.2023 For The Assessment Years 2015-16. Through The Aforesaid Appeal The Assesse Has Challenged Order U/S 250 Dated 16.03.2023 Passed By Cit(A), Chennai. 2.0 Ground Of Appeal No.1 Has Been Found To Be General In Nature & Hence Not Worthy Of Any Meritorious Adjudication.

Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

issue of shares is received- (i) by a venture capital undertaking from a venture capital company or a venture capital fund or a specified fund; or (ii) by a company from a class or classes of persons as may be notified by the Central Government in this behalf: Provided further

Advik Hi Tech Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Dy.Comm.of Income Tax, Circle 8, Pune, Akurdi Pune

In the result, the cross appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1158/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1158/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Advik Hi Tech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Gat No.357, Plot No.99, Village- Kharabwadi, Tal.- Khed, Chakan- 410501. Pan : Aacca3106E Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1330/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Vs. Advik Hi Tech Pvt. Ltd., Gat No.357, Plot No.99, Village- Kharabwadi, Tal.- Khed, Chakan- 410501. Pan : Aacca3106E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad A. Shah & Shri Rohit S. Tapadiya Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 16.10.2023 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(1)Section 80GSection 80I

said claim, as discussed above, is supported by the Explanatory Memorandum to Finance Bill 2014 with restriction placed only in relation to specified funds under section 80G, clarification issued by MCA and multiple favourable decisions. I have considered the submissions made by the Appellant. I find that the issue