“Section 36(10)(va)”

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.

Fiscal statutes must be construed strictly and literally. When the language is plain and unambiguous, courts must give effect to it without considering legislative intent or equitable considerations.

Income does not arise or accrue when the right to receive payment or compensation is inchoate, contingent, or in dispute, as such a right does not create a debt. This principle determines the correct year of taxability, particularly for compensation under litigation.

Payments made to meet any portion of the actual cost, as contemplated under Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act, are eligible for consideration.

For comparability analysis in transfer pricing, giant companies with significantly higher turnover and brand value cannot be compared with small-sized companies, and such companies should be excluded from the comparable set.

An employer's delayed deposit of employees' contributions to provident fund (PF) or Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) is deductible if the amounts are deposited before the due date for filing the income tax return.

This case is authority for the principle that deductions under section 36(1)(viii) of the Income-tax Act may be granted in respect of certain categories of receipts. The court's decision in this case is relied upon when interpreting the scope of business activities for tax purposes.

A trust substantially satisfying the conditions for exemption under Section 11 cannot be denied that exemption solely due to a procedural delay in furnishing the audit report in Form No. 10, as the submission of the form is considered a procedural rather than a mandatory condition.