“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)

The Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is allowed

ITA 2426/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Income Tax Return Prescribed Under Section 139(1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj K. JainFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi

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

Appellant has raised Ground No. 1 and 1(a) directed against the disallowance of INR 4,02,180/- made under Section 36(1)(va) of the ITA. No. 2426/Mum/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Act in respect of employees’ contribution to Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) and Provident Fund (PF) deposited ... Section 143(1) of the Act by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC after making addition of INR 4,02,180/- under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act being aggregate employees’ contribution to ESIC and PF deposited after the due date specified in the applicable statute but before

Samosaran Yarns Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the present appeal is allowed

ITA 2111/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Income Tax Return Prescribed Under Section 139(1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri M.B. SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC computing income at INR 3,03,60,721/- after making addition of INR 6,36,139/- under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act being aggregate employees’ contribution to ESIC and PF deposited after the due date specified in the applicable statute but before ... before us. 6. The Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant appearing before us submitted that the addition of INR 6,36,139/- under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act has been made without appreciating that the employee’s contribution to PF and ESIC was deposited before the due date

M/S Paper Recycle, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeal), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 694/MUM/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

disallowance of Rs 4,24,634 on account of delay in making the payment towards the employees' contribution for the provident fund, under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act, particularly when there are judgments of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court permitting such a deduction. Learned ... delayed payment in column 20(b) were delayed payments of contributions received from the employees for various funds, as referred to in Section 36(1)(va) vis-à-vis the respective statute, but not vis-à-vis the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The judicial precedents in support

Ace Global Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- CPC, Bangalore, ITO WD- 1(1), Thane

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

ITA 1962/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Kavitha Rajagopal () - A.Y. 2017-18 - A.Y. 2018-19

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

both dated 16/09/2021 for the assessment years 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. The issue involved in both the appeals pertains to addition under section 36(1)(va) to the tune of Rs.91,94,560/- and Rs.35,16,557/- for the assessment years 2017-18 & 2018-19, respectively, being amount deposited ... against the order passed under section 143(1) dated 16/10/2019 wherein the DCIT-CPC, Bangalore had disallowed the claim of the assessee under section 36(1)(va) on the ground that the employees’ contribution to PF & ESIC has been deposited beyond the due date specified under the relevant Acts

Ace Global Solutions Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC Bangalore & ITO WD1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1961/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Kavitha Rajagopal () - A.Y. 2017-18 - A.Y. 2018-19

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

Optech Engineering Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 2128/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Years: 2017-18 M/S. Optech Engineering Pvt. Asst. Director Of Income Tax, Ltd., Cpc, D 151, Amar Gian, Post Bag No.2, Vs. Opp New St Stand, Electronic City Post Office, Khopat, Bangalore – 560 500 Thane- 400 601 Pan: Aaaco7459C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Dinesh Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20 . 07 . 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25 . 07 . 2022 O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O. U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Singh, D.R

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

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC erred in holding that the explanations 2 and 5 to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act are retrospective in nature and applicable to the present assessment year. Thus, the said observation may be reversed ... vide ITA Nos. 596 & 597/Bang/ 2021 dated 13.12.2021 wherein it is held that explanatory memorandum to the Finance Act 2021 proposing amendment in Section 36(1)(va) as well as section 43B is applicable only from 01.04.2021. The relevant part of the decision is reproduced as under

Mafatlal Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4369/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Arati Vissanji &For Respondent: Nimesh Yadav

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

disallowance can be made u/s. 36(1)(va) where assessee made contribution to statutory funds after due date as specified in Explanation to section 36(1)(va) but before due date of filing of return of income. In support of the above contention he relied on the following case ... Para Nos. 9 and 10) 52. Ld. AR submitted that Explanatory memorandum to Finance Act, 2021 proposing amendment in section 36(1)(va) is applicable prospectively from 01.04.2021. Legal decisions wherein it is held that amendment to the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) vide Finance Act, 2021 is prospective

Mafatlal Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6963/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Arati Vissanji &For Respondent: Nimesh Yadav

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

Mafatlal Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6085/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Arati Vissanji &For Respondent: Nimesh Yadav

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

M/S. L K Trust, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 409/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Suresh Rao, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 143(1)

same is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by various orders of the ITAT, wherein, it was held that amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act by Finance Act 2021 is only prospective. Since, the issue on merits is covered in favour of the assessee ... date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. It was further held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and has got retrospective operation. 8. Aggrieved, assessee has filed this appeal before

M/S. Canadian International School Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 519/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 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. Goodwill Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 497/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

For Respondent: Shri Joseph Varghese

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

mentioned in the respective Acts but before the due date of filing return of income by relying on newly inserted Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to section 43B by Finance Act 2021. 6. The learned commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] Failed to appreciate that ... Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to Section 43B was inserted by Finance act 2021 where 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. 7. The learned Commissioner

Lmg Consulting Services India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Splash Fashions India Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 449/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Lmg Consulting Services India Pvt. Ltd., [Formerly Known As Splash Fashions India The Assistant Pvt. Ltd.], Director Of 4Th Floor, Building No. 3, Income Tax, 77 Town Centre, Cpc, Off Hal Airport Road, Vs. Bangalore. Yemlur, Bangalore – 560 037. Pan: Aarcs5369N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Rashmi R, Advocate : Shri Venudhar Godesi, Jcit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 21-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 31/03/2022 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Disallowance Towards Delayed Remittance Of Employees' Contribution To Provident Fund ["Pf"] Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Act

For Appellant: Smt. Rashmi R, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

Assessment Year 2019-20 on following grounds of appeal: “1. Disallowance towards delayed remittance of employees' contribution to Provident Fund ["PF"] under section 36(1)(va) of the Act Page 2 of 7 1.1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)"] and Learned Assistant Director of Income ... Learned CIT(A) in making the disallowance has grossly erred in placing reliance on the amendment vide Finance Act, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act and section 43B of the Act which is not applicable to the captioned AY. The Learned CIT(A) while having relied upon

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

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

ITA 502/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Ms.Veena V.H., CAFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., , Addl.CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

case of CIT Vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd., reported in 304 ITR 308 (SC), the CIT(A) concluded that amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the 3 ITA No.502/Bang/2022. M/s.Datacorp Traffic Private Limited. I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021, is clarificatory and has got retrospective operation ... 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 case of M/s. Shakuntala Agarbathi Company

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

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

ITA 501/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Ms.Veena V.H., CAFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., , Addl.CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

case of CIT Vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd., reported in 304 ITR 308 (SC), the CIT(A) concluded that amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the 3 ITA No.501/Bang/2022. M/s.Datacorp Traffic Private Limited. I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021, is clarificatory and has got retrospective operation ... 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 case of M/s. Shakuntala Agarbathi Company

L & W Construction Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 495/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajgopla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R, Addl.DIT (DR)

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

1) of the Act towards belated remittance of Employees share of Employees' State Insurance(ESI), Provident Fund(PF) and other welfare funds under section 36(1)(va), from the Form 3CD filed along with ITR, though such Form 3CD itself reports that such payment was made before the filing ... 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 issued Memorandum of Explanation that the same

Twigs Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 373/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19

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

Section 139(1)Section 156Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 431Section 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 issued Memorandum of Explanation that the same