“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)

Ashish Vaid, Mumbai vs. ITO 3(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 1 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 2140/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am National Faceless Appeal Ashish Vaid Centre (Nfac), 115, Maker Chambers Iii, Delhi Nariman Point, Vs. Ito 3(1)(1)Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 021 M.G. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aacpv7792A Assessee By : Shri Fenil Bhatt, Ar Revenue By : Shri Mehul Jain, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2022

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain, Sr. AR

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

grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant. The CIT(A) by mistake disposed the ground involving disallowance under Ashish Vaid; A.Y. 17–18 section 36(1)(va), despite the fact that the Appellant has not raised the said ground. The ground raised by Appellant, which has not been disposed ... relevant ESI & PF Act but before the due date of filing of return of income. A bare reading of the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 makes it clear that the 'due date' means the date by which the assessee is required

DCIT 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sodexo Technical Services India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 508/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

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

M/S. Steel Fab Engineers, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 26(3) (7), Mumbai

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

ITA 2136/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

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

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” Bench, Mumbai Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Kuldip Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 2136/Mum/2021 (A.Y

M/S. Ujjain Waste Management Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. WD 15 (3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2083/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

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

M/S. Kalyan Gas Services, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Thane

ITA 2028/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, D.R

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

year under consideration, after the due date prescribed under the PF/ESIC Act. Consequently, the AO made addition of Rs.1,71,717/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). 4. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing ... what has been discussed above, we are of the considered view that since the amended provisions contained under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act are not applicable for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2018-19 as the amendment will be effective from

Pentas Landscape Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bengaluru, Thane

ITA 1955/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Bandi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Pophare, D.R

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

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). The Assessing Officer (AO)/CPC by invoking the provision contained under section 36(1)(va) of the Act disallowed the same. ITA No.1954/M/2021 & ors. 3 M/s. Pentas Landscape Pvt. Ltd. 4. Assessee carried the matter before ... Bombay High Court cited as 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) and further contended that the amended provisions contained under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act are not applicable to the year under consideration. 7. However, on the other hand, the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue relied

Pentas Landscape Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore, Thane

ITA 1954/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Bandi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Pophare, D.R

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

Gea Process Engineering (India) P.Ltd, Gujrat vs. ITO, Mumbai

ITA 4338/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit, M/S. Gea Process Circle- 2(2)(1), Engineering (India) Pvt. Room No.545, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Savli Road, M.K. Road, P.O. Dumad, Mumbai - 400020 Baroda, Gujarat- 391740 Pan: Aaacl0566H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mishra, D.R

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

Section 43B by the Finance Act 2003 is applicable without appreciating the fact that the Employees1 Contribution to EPF is governed by Section 36(1 )(va) and not Section 43B of the Act. 6. On the fact and in circumstances of the case ... being heard to the assessee. Ground No.5 & 6 of Revenue’s appeal 24. The AO made a disallowance of Rs.22,06,711/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act on the ground that the amount in question being employees contribution to PF has been paid late after

DCIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Gea Process Engineering ()I) P.Ltd, Gujrat

ITA 4155/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mishra, D.R

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

Preety Arora, Mumbai vs. ADIT (CPC), Mumbai

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

ITA 1515/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalpreety Arora Vs. Adit (Cpc) 96, Shanghrila Shahid Karnataka Bhagatsingh Road Colaba 560100 Maharashtra – 400005 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aadpa3141M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Pooja Hasrajani Respondent By : Mr. R.A. Dhyani Date Of Hearing 08.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): 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. 2018-19. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Before Us:

For Appellant: Ms.Pooja HasrajaniFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani

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

erred in facts and law in not appreciating the fact that amendment made by Finance Act, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) and 438 of the Act are prospective in nature. 2. The fact in brief is that the A.O made adjustment in the intimation passed u/s 143(1 ... 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

G R Chandrashekar Naidu, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 249/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Ms.Sumangala Ranga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT-DR

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

filing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act for AY 2018- 19 and therefore, deduction was allowable under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act as applicable for the relevant assessment year. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances ... case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in relying on the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Act, without appreciating that the same were prospective in nature being effective from 1 April 2021 and accordingly, applicable

G R Chandrashekar Naidu, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 248/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Ms.Sumangala Ranga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT-DR

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

Rishabh Metals and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CPC, DCIT -Cir 1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 327/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhrishabh Metals & Vs. Dcit, Circle- 1(3)(1) Chemicals Pvt Ltd, Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, Eros Theater Mk Road, Bldg, J.T.Road, Mumbai-400020. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr2214E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Pankaj Kumar.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2022 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), New Delhi Passed U/S 143(1) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar.DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 192Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

justified and the same may be deleted. 4. The CIT(A) erred upholding the disallowance of Rs.39,745/- made by the CPC under section 36(1) (va) of the Act on account of delayed payment on account of employees contribution toward provident fund without appreciating that the same ... prospective in nature and thus the same will not apply for the assessment under consideration. Thus, the disallowance made under section 36(1) (va) is not justified and the same may be deleted. 6. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, rescind or amend any of the Grounds

M/S. Super Tiles & Marbles Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1950/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

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

Ketan Brothers Diamonds Exports, Mumbai vs. ACIT 23(2) /ACIT 23(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1627/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vijaykumar S. BiyaniFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

pertaining to disallowance of Rs.32,140, on account of alleged delay in payment towards employee’s contribution to Provident Fund (P.F.) under section 36(1)(va) r/w section 2(24) of the Act, by the Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru, while processing the income tax return under section 143(1 ... 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

Anjappar Chettinad Ac Restaurant, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the both the appeals are allowed

ITA 452/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. V. Padmanaban, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 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 ITA Nos.393 and 452/Bang/2022 Page ... which the provisions of subclause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. 8. 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

Anjappar Chettinad Ac Restaurant, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the both the appeals are allowed

ITA 393/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: PendingITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. V. Padmanaban, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

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

Swaroopsing Bhadursingh Rathore, Thane vs. Asstt.Director of Income Tax, CPC, Banglore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1827/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

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 143(3)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 ... 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

Swaroopsingh Bhadursingh Rathore, Thane vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - CPC, Banglore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1826/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

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 143(3)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 ... 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

Hodala Ganapiah Chandrashekar, Tumkur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Tumkur

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

ITA 239/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep C., A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R

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