“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)

Rapid Global Business |Solutions India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 496/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Rapid Global Business Solutions India Vs. Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Cpc, 18/7, 1St Floor, Narayan Business Bengaluru. Chambers, Hosur Road, Wilson Garden, Bengaluru – 560 027. Pan : Aaccr 5018 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Joseph Varghese, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: . V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Joseph Varghese, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(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. 5. 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

Bulk Liquid Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 485/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Rajgopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Bulk Liquid Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 484/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Rajgopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S. Elektrobit India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 142/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Rahil Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)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 issued Memorandum of Explanation that the same

Greenglobe Fuelsolutions, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 26(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1886/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Of Income And, Hence, Allowable As Deduction U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 43B.

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RamchandraFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi

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

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 5,45,578 made by the CPC, Bengaluru under section 36(1)(va) while processing the return of income without appreciating the fact that the said amount was paid on or before the due date of filing ... Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC computing income at INR 1,02,29,760/- after making addition of INR 5,45,578/- under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act being aggregate employees‟ contribution to Employees‟ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) and Provident Fund (PF) deposited after the due date specified

Aaryans Security Force, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

In the result, this appeal is allowed

ITA 1875/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

disallowance of Rs 5,18,772 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 ... 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

United Shippers Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 3 (3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7801/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhunited Shippers Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Prospect Income Tax-3(3) Chambers, D.N. Road, Air India Building, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0764C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Aakash Marthak &For Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 41(1)Section 43B

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 ... Karnataka High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd., (supra) has taken the view that employee's contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act would also be covered under section 43B of the Act and therefore if the share of the employee's share of contribution

Wm Global Sourcing India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 450/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Smt. Rashmi R, Advocate

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

Assessment Year 2019-20 on following grounds of appeal: “1. Disallowance of delayed remittance of employee's contribution to provident fund ("PF"] under section 36(1)(va) of the Act 1.1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax ["CIT(A)"] and Learned Assistant Director of Income tax [“ADIT"], CPC have erred ... 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

P. Rajesh Ship Breaking Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1980/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhp. Rajesh Ship Breaking Vs. Acit, Circle 4(3)(2) Pvt. Ltd., 61/2 Lakri Aayakar Bhavan, Bunder, Rey Road, M.K. Road, Darukhana, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400010 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacp7197G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: C.V. JainFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews

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

Sri Chamundeswari Sugars Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 356/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CA

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

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 these appeals before the Tribunal. Page 4 of 7 ITA Nos. 355 & 356/Bang/2022 ... 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 I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and declaratory in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent

Sri Chamundeswari Sugars Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 355/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CA

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Tuff Guard Force Private Limited, Ghatkopar West vs. CIT(Appeals) NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 2450/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Tuff Guard Force Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of Income 207, Kails Esplanade, Lbs Marg, Vs. Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Ghatkopar (W), Delhi. Mumbai 400 086 Pan No.Aabcb4892K Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri D.B. Shah. Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Kumar (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 21.06.2022. Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2022. O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, A.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dt.28.01.2021 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Kumar (D.R.)For Respondent: Shri D.B. Shah

Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 438Section 43B

Jagadish Reddy, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 278/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh T.R., A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Srinivas Rao Bandaru, D.R

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

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 ... 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

Jagadish Reddy, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 277/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh T.R., A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Srinivas Rao Bandaru, D.R

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

M/S. Oriental Trading Co., Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2329/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2329 & 2330/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Cit(A) - Nfac M/S Oriental Trading Co. Mumbai. 1St Floor, Elite House, Punjab बिधम/ Foundry, Near Classic Studio, Vs. Mira Road East, Mumbai-400 107 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaafo7024L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sanjay Parikh, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 11.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 11.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 26.10.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, In Relation To Adjustment Made U/S 143(1) For The Ay 2018-19 & 2019-20. 2

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Parikh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 80

36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24(x) of the Act. NFAC has held that amendment brought by Finance Act 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 to section 36(1)(va) by brining explanation 5 to section 43B and amendment in Clause 36(1)(va) held it to be retrospective. 5. It is admitted ... reported to be „due date‟ in column 20 (b) in respect of contributions received from employees for various funds as referred to in Section 36(1)(va) and the fact that the expression „due date‟ has been defined under Explanation (now Explanation 1) to Section 36(1)(va) provides that

Accenture Solutions Pvt Ltd. (Asol) As A Successor to Accenture Serivces Pvt Ltd (Aspl), Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 14 (1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 8008/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Accenture Solutions The Dy. Commissioner O Pvt. Ltd. (‘Asol’), Income Tax, (As A Successor To Circle 14(1)(1), Accenture Services Pvt. 475, Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd. (‘Aspl’) Which Has M.K. Road, Merged Into Asol With An Mumbai - 400020 Effective Date Of 1 Vs. December 2016) Plant 3, Godrej & Boyce Complex, Phirojshah Nagar, Vikhroli West, Off L.B.S Marg, Mumbai – 400 079 Pan: Aacca8997K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

addition amounting to Rs 14,50,987 on account of delayed payment of employees' contribution to provident fund and employees state insurance under Section 36( 1 )(va) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the said contribution is paid before filing of return of income under Section 139(1 ... barred by limitation. 18. However, by virtue of this appeal the assessee has also raised corporate grounds No.21, 22 & 23 challenging additions under section 36(1)(va) and non granting of credit of taxes deducted at source and levying of interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act, which

DCIT, Circle -1, Thane vs. M/S Accura Pharmaquip Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 969/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma (Sr. AR)

Section 1Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

disallowed by the CPC u/s 143(1) of the Act without taking note of the explanation inserted by Finance Act, 2021 in Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Act. We note the issue raised by the Revenue is no longer res-integra. We note that this Tribunal ... 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

Jagdamba Service Solution Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT(A) (NFAC)- Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 913/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma (Sr. AR)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

date as prescribed the respective Acts (PF/ESI Act). According to the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the explanation inserted in Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 is retrospectively applicable for the year under consideration (AY. 2018-19) and is applicable to pending cases ... 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

T K Steel Rolling Mills Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 892/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

disallowance on account of delay in making the payment towards the employees’ contribution for the provident fund and ESI dues, 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. 2. When these ... authorities below and has also made very erudite submissions to the effect that clear legislative intent in the insertion of Explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(va), with effect from 1st April 2021, must mean that so far as the assessment years prior to the assessment years

T K Steel Rolling Mills Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, all the appeals are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 891/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2018-19