“Section 36(1)(va)”

Section References (mined)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)2,467 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 36(1)(va) is CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. (321 ITR 508), cited in 1,629 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 36(1)(va)

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.

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.

(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).

Judgments citing Section 36(1)(va)

Navjivan Synthetics Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 97/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Navjivan Synthetics Cit(A), Pvt. Ltd., Nfac Delhi-110011 158/164, Laxmi Bhavan, Vs. Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai- 400 002 Pan: Aaacn137Ok (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ashish Kumar, D.R.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, D.R

Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

M/S. Nath Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-1(3) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 832/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri N. R. AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. AR)

Section 119Section 139(5)

1) of the Act, so it is allowable deduction. However according to Ld. DR the explanation inserted in Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 is retrospective in nature and is applicable for the year under consideration (i.e, AY 2018-19). However

The Malad Sahakari Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 61/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ms. Tejasvi PatilFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

income of the Appellant was computed at INR 5,43,41,690/- by making, inter alia, disallowance of INR 3,60,252/- under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act and a disallowance of INR 6,69,247/- under Section 43B of the Act. 3. The Appellant filed application ... However, the CIT(A) declined to grant any relief to the Assessee as regards disallowance of INR 3,60,252/- under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act holding as under: “55. In view of the same, with due respect, the reliance of the appellant on ratios of various judgments

Pearl Freight Serv. P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Aksh Jain, ACIT -15(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 31/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepearl Freight Services Pvt. Ltd., V. Acit-15(2)(2) B-106, Great Services Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 357, 3Rd Floor Sector – 15, Cbd Belapur Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Navi Mumbai – 400614 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcp1825G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Shruti Mishra Department By : Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti MishraFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal

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

employee account before the due date. Accordingly, Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹.1,73,45,956 by invoking provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 5. Further, he observed that assessee has made investment in House No.43 to the tune of ₹.14 Lakhs as on 31.03.2013. However

Bellur Hiriyaniah Sridhar Murthy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 544/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: None

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 30Section 32Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 41Section 43B

additions made are contrary to the materials and hence the same is perverse; erred in law and in facts by applying section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 instead of Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The learned Assessing Officer, erred by not appreciating ... addition made by the Ld. AO in his order by taking recourse to the amendment by way of insertion of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to the section 43B which takes effect from 1st April 2021 and is applicable to the AY 2021-22 onwards

Bellur Hiriyaniah Sridhar Murthy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 543/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: None

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 30Section 32Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 41Section 43B

People Management Services, Mysuru vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 541/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Bhargava, S.NFor Respondent: Shri K.R Narayan, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

date prescribed in the corresponding statutes; respectively. We notice in this factual backdrop that the legislature has not only incorporated necessary amendment in Sections 36(1)(va) as well as 43B vide Finance Act, 2021 to this effect but also the CBDT has Page 4 of 6 issued Memorandum

Datacorp Traffic Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 532/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Aug 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. It was further held by the ITAT that amendment by Finance Act, 2021, to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act is not clarificatory. The relevant finding of the ITAT in the M/s. Datacorp Traffic Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page ... assessee and against the respondent-revenue. There shall be no order as to costs." 7.2 The further question is whether the amendment to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and declaratory in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent

Teamlease Services Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 530/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Teamlease Services Ltd., The Assistant 6Th Floor, Bmtc Director Of Commercial Complex, Income Tax, 80 Feet Road, Cpc, Koramangala, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 095. Pan: Aabct5458K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None : Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 02-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 27/09/2021 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: None

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

employee contribution paid before filing of income tax returns The CPC and Ld.CIT(A) have not appreciated the fact that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) is prospective in nature. The memorandum explaining the provision 3. of Finance Bill, 2021 clearly states that the amendment to section 36(1 ... remitted within the due date as mentioned in the respective Acts. The CIT(A) also relied on the amendment brought about to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4.1 Before us none appeared today on behalf

Shahi Electricals, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 528/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sairam, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

section 43B by Finance Act 2021. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that the Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to Section43B of the Act was inserted by Finance act 2021 and the explanatory memorandum to the Finance Act, 2021 proposing ... amendment in section 36(1)(va) as well as section 43B is applicable only prospectively from 01.04.2021. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the decision of the Jurisdictional Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in case of Essae Teraoka Private limited vs DCIT

Park View Service Station, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 527/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Sairam V, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.R Narayan, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

section 43B by Finance Act 2021. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that the Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to Section 43B of the Act was inserted by Finance Act 2021 and the explanatory memorandum to the Finance ... proposing amendment in section 36(1)(va) as well as section 43B is applicable only prospectively from 01.04.2021. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the decision of the Jurisdictional Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in case of Essae Teraoka Private limited

Wave Mechancis Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 529/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Wave Mechanics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, V-3, V-3, I Main, I Phase, Peenya Cpc, Industrial Area, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 058. Pan : Aaacw 3621 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Madhukeshwar Hegde, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Madhukeshwar Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

With regard to employee’s share of contribution to PF and ESI, the CIT(A) referred to the amendment made to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021. The Finance Act, 2021 has amended section 36, sub-section (1), in clause (va ... which the provisions of subclause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. 6. The CIT(A) was of the view that Section 36(1)(va) and section 43B(b) operate on totally different footings and have different parameters for due dates, i.e., employee's contribution is linked to payment

Krishnappa Murthy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 518/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri. Krishnappa Murthy, Vs. Cit, #67, 4Th Cross, 2Nd Main, Hosahalli, Cpc, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 040. Pan : Armpm 8844 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Priya Balashankar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Priya Balashankar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Balmatta Diagnostic & Research Centre Ltd., Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the both the appeals are allowed

ITA 516/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Mrinalini R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Balmatta Diagnostic & Research Centre Ltd., Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the both the appeals are allowed

ITA 515/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. G. Sathyanarayan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Expat Engineering India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 503/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Rajgopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 43B

assessee and against the respondent-revenue. There shall be no order as to costs." 7.2 The further question is whether the amendment to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and declaratory in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent ... return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T. Act. Therefore, the amendment brought about by the Finance Act, 2021 to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the I.T. Act, alters the position of law adversely to the assessee. Therefore, such amendment cannot be held to be retrospective

M/S. Sree Narasimha Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 309/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Sree Narasimha Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, No.57, Ground Floor, Vasuki, Cpc, Swasthi Road Cross Shanthi Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 027. Pan : Aakcs 0472 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Priya Balashankar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Priya Balashankar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

C Krishniah Chetty Jewellers Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 747/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Krishniah Chetty Jewellers Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 1(1)(1), No.36, 1St Floor, Commercial Street, Bengaluru. Shivaji Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aaack 5621 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. C. R. Krishna, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. C. R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Bholanath Precision Engineering Pvt Ltd, Bhandup, Mumbai vs. CIT(Appeals), CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre

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

ITA 86/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Kavitha Rajagopal () Bholanath Precision Engineering Vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax Pvt Ltd, 11, Kembros Industrial (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Estate, Sonapur Lane, Bhandup, Centre, Delhi Mumbai-400 078 Pan : Aaccb6076G Appellant Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Income-tax (Appeals) 11 has erred in confirming the adjustment u/s 143(1)(a) as done by CPC under section 43B and section 36(1)(va) as done by CPC under section 43B and section 36(1)(va) of Rs. 1625634. The adjustment done by the CPC in the intimation

M/S. Arihant Digiprint, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 26(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 430/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Arihant Digiprint Vs. Acit, Circle – 26(1) Shed No. 1, Italian Kautilaya Bhavan, Bkc Compound, Goregoan Bandra (E), (E), Mumbai-400063. Mumbai-400051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajfa8412H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Ketan Vajani.Ar Respondent By : Shri.Manoj Sinha.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 143(1) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Ketan Vajani.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Manoj Sinha.DR

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

Bangalore, hereinafter referred to as the "PC', on account of employees' contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC by wrongly applying the provisions of section 36(1) (va) of the Income-tax Act as applicable at the relevant point of time. 3. The NFAC has failed to appreciate the fact that ... made within the due date for filing the Return of Income. 5. The NFAC has erred in interpreting that the amendments made to section 36(1) (va) and section 43B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021 will also apply to the earlier years and thereby holding that