“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)

M/S. Kohinoor Printers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1782/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1781 & 1782/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Kohinoor Printers Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Cpc Unit No.1, Ground Floor, Banglore Vs. Prakash Power Laundry Building, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai-400028. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1634R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mahesh Rajora Revenue By: Ms. Bharti Singh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Nfac”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20. Ita. No.1781/Mum/2021 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Nfac”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2018-19. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh RajoraFor Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh (Sr. AR)

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

relevant statute of provident Fund Act is to be allowed despite the fact that legislation has not only incorporated necessary amendment in section 36(1)(va) of the Act by inserting explanation 2 as well as explanation 5 to section 43B vide Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01.04.2021, wherein ... A.Ys.2018-19 & 2019-20 19. In view of the above, we are of the view that the legislative amendments incorporated in section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021 by inserting explanation 2 and explanation 5 to the respective provisions, are prospective

Kohinoor Printers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1781/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh RajoraFor Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh (Sr. AR)

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

Ani Integrated Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 15(1) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1634/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

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

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 ... jurisdictional High Courts. Such conduct, according to the learned counsel, is impermissible. Finally, his next plea is that the insertion of Explanations to Section 36(1)(va) and 43B, by the Finance Bill 2021, is prospective in nature, and, accordingly, so far as the period prior to 1st April

One Point One Solutions Limited, Vashi, Navi Mumbai, Thane vs. CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 1443/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh

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

which was contended by the ld. CIT(A) as applicable only for disallowance u/s.43B of the Act and not for section 36(1)(va) of the Act brought about in the Finance Bill 2021, where explanation to Sec 36(1)(va) has stated that employee’s contribution to PF/ESIC will ... does not come under the perview of the clarifactory memorandum to the Finance Act, 2021 with regard amendment to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B. From the above observation, we are of the view that the impugned addition made u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act in both the assessment

Quarter Deck, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, CPC Bangalore

In the result, this appeal is allowed

ITA 1381/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

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

disallowance of Rs 2,47,086 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, Assessment Year: 2018-19 Page 2 of 10 particularly when there are judgments ... 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

Forcepoint Software Consulting India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 6/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailforcepoint Software Vs. Assistant Director Of Consulting India Pvt. Income Tax, Cpc Ltd., Level 2, Kalpataru Bangalore Synergy Opp. Grand Karnataka 560500 Hyatt, Santacruz (East) Mumbai- 400055 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacw6672P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Renu KapoorFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra

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

facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the NFAC has erred in confirming the disallowance made by the AO CPC under section 36(1)(va) of the act of Rs. 14,90,835/- on account of delay in deposit of employee's contribution towards PF/ESI without considering the fact ... apex court and jurisdictional high court. 3. That the NFAC has erred in confirming the disallowance made by AO CPC under section 36(1)(va) of the act of Rs. 14,90,835/- on account of delay in deposit of employee's contribution towards PF/ESI without considering the correct interpretation

Vijay Bag Singh Rajpurohit, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir CPC``, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2260/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailvijay Bag Singh Vs. The Deputy Rajpurohit, Unit No. 2 Commissioner Of Income Building No. 2 Jaswant Tax, Cpc, Bangalore, Bagh, Sion Trombay 560100 Road, Chembur Mumbai – 400071 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Adqpr7848L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra

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

case and in law the Commissioner of Income Appeals National Faceless Appeal Centre, [Ld CIT(A)] erred in upholding disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in respect of employees contribution made to the provided fund of Rs. 2,26,080/- which ... covered u/s 43B. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CITA erred in upholding disallowance under section 36(1)(va) without considering the various jurisprudence wherein it was held that payment made for the employees' contribution before due of the filling of return

Kalpesh Synthetics Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore, Bengaluru

In the result, this appeal is allowed

ITA 1910/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

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

disallowance of Rs 5,77,460 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 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Page 2 of 10 Act, particularly when there are judgments ... 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

Bishnucharan Bharat Mohanty, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 26(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result the appeals by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1906/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Matrix Integreted Products Llp Vs. Adit(Cpc)-Ward 27 (2)(2) 213/5746, 2Nd Floor, Aruodya Darshan, Navi Mumbai 400 703 90 Feet Road Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai 400 075 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Abcfm7193D Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad Assessment Year: 2018-19 Bishnucharan Bharat Mohanty, Vs. Ito, Ward 29 (1)(2) B-4, Maichael Sadan, Laxmi Udyog Nagar, Mumbai 400051 Kanjur Marg (W) Mumbai 400078 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Aqepm6398K Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Matrix Integreted

Matrix Integrated Products LLP, Mumbai vs. WD 27(2) (2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1905/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Matrix Integreted

Associated Hospitality and Developers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CPC, Mumbai

In the result the appeals by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1747/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Starline Workshop, Vs. Ito-Ward1(1) 1 C/O Sterling Motor Compound, Nashik 422 002 Old Agra Road, Gadkari Chowk, Nashik 422001 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Acbfs2289L Assessee By : Shri Ryan Saldanha Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad Assessment Year: 2019-20 Vishnu Sadu Gade, Vs. Dcit, Circle -3 C-3, 302, Ashar Estate, Thane 400 604 Shreenagar, Thane (W)-400604 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Aabpg4702C Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad Assessment Year: 2018-19 Associated Hospitality & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Cpc 4Th Floor, Techniplex-I, Techniplex Complex, Veer Savarkar Flyover, Goregaon (W), Mumbai 400 062 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Aafca7847P Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Shah Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Vasundhara Packaging Industry, Vs. Cit(A)- (Faceless) 501, Blue Bell, Royal Complex, Eksar Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai 400 092 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Aadfv0326M Assessee By : Shri Ajay Singh Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad

For Appellant: Shri Ryan SaldanhaFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Starline Workshop

Vishnu Sadu Gade, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir. 3, Thane

In the result the appeals by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1746/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Ryan SaldanhaFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Starline Workshop

Sangeeta Udayraj Singh, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed and the orders of the authority below are set aside

ITA 1713/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Learned Cit(A). Learned Cit(A) Confirmed The Action Of Cpc By Holding As Under : 5.41. I Have Carefully Considered The Arguments Of The Appellant As Well As Various Decisions Cited By The Appellant. In The Instant Case, Disallowance Has Been Made U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act On The Ground That The Employees' Contribution To Esic Were Deposited Much After The Specified Dates Mentioned In The Said Act & The Same Is Clearly Mentioned In The Tax Audit Report.

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

account of appellant's failure to pay the employee's contribution of PF/ESI within the prescribed due dates as per section 36(1)(va) is strictly in accordance with law and clearly comes under the prima facie adjustments as envisaged under section 143(1)(a)(iv). The order under section

M/S. Vasundhara Packaging Industry, Mumbai vs. ITO 32 (1) (1), Mumbai

In the result the appeals by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1575/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ryan SaldanhaFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Starline Workshop

Geeta Udyog, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 226/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhgeeta Udyog Vs. Asst. Director Of Income 404, Gupta Bhavan, Tax, Cpc, Bengluru Ahmedabad Street, Centralized Processing Carnac Bunder, Centre, Income Tax Mumbai – 400009 Department, Bengaluru 560500 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aajfg1369H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hari S. RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani

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

India P. Ltd. (2022) 134 taxmann.com 56 wherein it is held that amendment brought in by inserting Explanation 2 to the provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act is prospective in nature and would be applicable from assessment year 2021-22. In the case

M/S. Gia India Laboratories Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 234/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhgia India Laboratory Pvt. Vs. The Dcit, Cpc, Ltd., 10Th Floor, Trade Bangalore, Centre, Bandra Kurla 560500 Complex Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400 098 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccg9457G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani

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

1 ITA No. 234/Mum/2022 A.Y.2018-19 GIA India Laboratory Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The DCIT, CPC, Bangalore THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

M/S. Flag Security Services, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 23(1) -3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1924/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Flag Security Vs. Ito Ward-23(1)-3 Services, 101, Navjyot Mumbai Chs, Near Kadamwadi, St. Anthony Street, Vakola, Santacruz East, Mumbai – 400098 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaff7581M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar Meena

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 436Section 43B

date specified u/s 139(1) and as such are fully allowable. In view of the provisions of section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) & section 436 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, being late deposit of employees contribution towards ESIC/EPF which has been duly deposited

Care Facilities Management Services P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeals) NFAC-Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed and the orders of the authority below are set aside

ITA 1707/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Learned Cit(A). Learned Cit(A) Noted That Pf&Esic Have Been Deposited After The Due Date But Before The Date Of Filing Of Return. However, Learned Cit(A) Upheld The Action By Referring The Amendment In The Act.

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

issue raised is that learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 23,79,799/- under section 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act pertaining to PF/ESIC contribution paid after due date made by the CPC under section 143(1) of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case

M/S. Sudershan Gears, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-17(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed and the orders of the authority below are set aside

ITA 1700/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

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

issue raised is that learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining to disallowance of Rs. 4,75,259/- under section 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act pertaining to PF/ESIC contribution paid after due date made by CPC under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act. 3. Brief facts

Smt. Nanjamma, Bengaluru vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 160/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia

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

learned CIT[A] / NFAC is not justified in holding that the amendment made by insertion of Explanation 2 to the provisions of section 36[1][va] of the Act and the insertion of Explanation 5 to section 43B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01/04/2021 ... learned CIT[A] / NFAC is not justified in holding that the amendment made by insertion of Explanation 2 to the provisions of section 36[1][va] of the Act and the insertion of Explanation 5 to section 43B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01/04/2021