“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)

Atamjeet Singh Sandhu, Mohali vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 643/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

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

contribution with employer’s contribution and administrative charges. It was submitted that under the law, only employees’ contribution falls within the mischief of section 36(1)(va), whereas employer’s contribution is separately governed by section 43B. It was emphasized that the assessee had in fact deposited the employer ... 971/Del/2025, order dated 22.08.2025, wherein the Tribunal, after an elaborate analysis of the provisions of section 143(1)(a), section 36(1)(va), and section 43B, concluded that disallowance of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI on the basis of delayed deposit is not a matter which falls within the limited compass

Atamjeet Singh Sandhu, Mohali vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 642/CHANDI/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

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

Cogneesol Private Limited, Mohali vs. Addljcit (A), Aurangabad

ITA 526/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 526/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

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

assessment year 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in interpreting section 36(1)(va) of the Act independently without considering the provisions of section 43B of the Act. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deeming ... impact of Explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to Section 43B as retrospective. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making additions of Rs.57,390/- on account of business expenditure incurred at clubs being entrance fees and subscription as per section

M/S. Kushang Security and House Keeping Service Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2964/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 254(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Unistar Biotech Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 27(1), Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5052/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 5052/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Unistar Biotech Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, E-13, Third Floor, Plot No. 3, Lsc, Ward-27(1), Ghazipur, Delhi-110096 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcu2467P Assessee By: Sh. Narender Singh, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.09.2025

For Appellant: Sh. Narender Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(7)

revised computation, which could not be processed due to Jurisdictional transfer. 4. That the appellant, without prejudice, does not contest the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) in respect of employees' PF/ESI contributions. 5. That In view of decisions including Rajasthan Fasteners (Raj HC), Iskander Altaf Lalljee

Tangerine Design Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-25(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3356/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalm/S Tangerine Design Private Cpc-Itr Limited, (On Behalf Of Ao) Plot No.9, Sector-4, Imt Vs. Nfac, Ao Range Code-46, Manesar, Gurgaon, C.R. Building, Haryana-122050. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aaect6475H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 24.04.2025 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-9/10044/2020-21 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 17.10.2019 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. In The Present Appeal Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Addition Made On Account Of Delayed Payment Of Employee’S Contribution Towards Esi/Epf. Tangerine Design Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit 3. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee.

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

High court. Copy of the Order of CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2015-16 is enclosed as Annexure D. The provision of law (Section 36(1)(va)) as applicable to Assessment Year 2018-19 is the same as was for assessment year 2015-16. 6. As the evident from

Animesh Mukherjee, Durgapur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Durgapur

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

ITA 1903/KOL/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Suvo Chakraborty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 22(4)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

that came up for consideration for both assessment years is disallowance of employee's contribution to provident fund and ESI in terms of Section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) read with section 43B of the 2 ITANo.1902&1903/Kol/2024 Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Therefore ... belated payment of contributions to the respective funds on or before the due date provided under the respective Acts in terms of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act read with section 43B of the Act, read with section 22(4)(x) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred

Animesh Mukherjee, Durgapur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Durgapur

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

ITA 1902/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Suvo Chakraborty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 22(4)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Tn (Dk) Express Ways Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 508/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 43(1)

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘ए’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad श्री विजय

Vaks Multiple Service Private Limited, Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, Miscellaneous Application of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3255/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Vaks Multiple Service Vs Acit Plot No. 58-59, D L F Main Cgo Complex, Nh 4, Market, Sector-11, Faridabad, Nit, Faridabad, Haryana Haryana Pan: Aaecv4819M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Ankit Gupta, Ca Revenue By Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/09/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’ For Short), New Delhi Dated 17/03/2025 For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y.2019-20 Having Gross Total Income Of Rs. 79,44,337/-. During The Processing Of Itr U/S. 143(1)(A), The Cpc Had Disallowed Rs. 33,02,357/- On Account Of Delay In Payment Of Employees Share Of Esi & Pf. Being Aggrieved With The Aforesaid Disallowance Of Rs. 33,02,357/-, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac). The Cit (Nfac) Vide Order Vaks Multiple Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit

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

passed u/s.250 of the Act and confirmed the addition/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of late deposit of PF/ESIC contributions under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the order dated 17/03/2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the present ... confirming the addition/disallowance of Rs. 33,02,357/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of late deposit of PF/ESIC contributions under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. It is evident that the Ld. CIT(A) vide its order dated 24/06/2022, deleted the disallowance

Asha Kiran Packaging, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 985/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri K.S Nagesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

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

assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance made by the AO for ₹2,78,976 under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Page 2 of 5 3. In the present case, the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act was processed after making ... matter has however been settled by amendment to section 36 by Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01.04.2021. Explanation 2 below section 36(1)(va). introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2021, clearly states that the provisions of sec. 43B shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied

Rng Construction Co, Mandideep vs. Addl., Jt., Dy., Asstt.ITO, Bhopal

ITA 230/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Smartenviro Systems Private Limited, Pune vs. I.T.O, Pune

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

ITA 1144/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha

Section 139(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Narayansinthy Gajendra Patro, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 13(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad

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

ITA 698/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA Srikanth PolireddyFor Respondent: Sri Suresh Babu KN, Sr. AR

Section 143(1)Section 234Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

provident fund/superannuation fund/fund set-up under ESI Act not credited to employees account on or before the due date as per section 36(1)(va) and the amount of Rs.14,66,815/- was paid in the same financial year or before the due date of filing the return of income ... being employees contribution to Provident fund of Rs.14,62,555/- and to ESI of Rs.4,260/- 8 ITA.No.698/Hyd./2025 under section 36(1)(va) of the Income tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”], ignoring the fact that, it is otherwise allowable u/sec.43B of the Income

Sri Sainath Associates, Lucknow vs. Dy.CIT-6, Lucknow

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

ITA 649/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)

Employee’s Contribution of PF and ESI were paid by the appellant after the “due date” as per the explanation below section 36((1)(va) of the I T Act,1961, the same was added back to the total income of the appellant in the light of provision of Section ... auditor himself has indicated in the tax audit report that such payments have been made beyond the due date prescribed in the section 36(1)(va) of the | T Act,1961, but Appellant has claimed it in the Return of I.T.A. No.649/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 8 Income against

DCIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata vs. Spml Infra Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 440/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 13Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 80Section 80I

character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of Section 2(24)(x) and therefore, subjected to conditions spelt out by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked ... action of the AO in disallowing the deduction of employees contribution to PF & ESI beyond the dates in the specified Acts under Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) is upheld. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.” 4. Aggrieved with the order

Capacite Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT/DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 6315/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 115JSection 132Section 153ASection 23(1)Section 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(VA)Section 9

nature and character of the employer's contribution under section 36(1)(iv) of the IT Act and the employee's contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the ITA No. 6315 & 6309/Mum/2024 CapaciteInfraprojects Limited; A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 IT Act. In the case of section 36(1 ... obligation of the taxpayer under section 43B of the IT Act. If the same is not deposited as per the mandate of section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act, a deduction would not be available to the taxpayer. 6.2.2 Moreover, while passing assessment order u/s. 153A r.w.s

Capacite Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT/DCIT Central Circle 1(2) Mumbai, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 6309/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 115JSection 132Section 153ASection 23(1)Section 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(VA)Section 9

Natwest Digital Services India Private Limited Successor Entity to Nwm Services India Private Ltd., Gurgaon, Haryana vs. Assistant Commissionar of Income Tax, Gurgaon

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

ITA 2004/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalnatwest Digital Services India Asst. Commissioner Of Private Limited Successor Entity Income Tax, To Nwm Services India Private Vs. Circle-3(1), Gurgaon. Ltd. (Successor Entity Of Nwm Services India Private Limited) 6Th Floor, Tower A, Building 2, Candor Techspace, It/Ites Sez, Sector-21, Industrial Complex, Dundahera, Gurgaon, Haryana-122016. Pan:Aagcn0009D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S.K. Aggarwal, Ca Department By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10.09.2025

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Rotomag Motors & Controls (P) Ltd., Anand vs. The Dy.CIT, Anand Circle, Anand

Appeal is allowed

ITA 796/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate, &For Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40

arate after, rerarare areal ‘B’ AgTaTaTA IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR