“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)

Shantha Rao Gujju, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 158/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept

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

Shantha Rao Gujju, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 157/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept

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

Cheruvathur Veetil Damodaran, Mysuru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 678/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri B. Parthasarathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept

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

Sulthan Mohammed Ismail, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 673/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept

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

Sulthan Mohammed Ismail, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 672/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept

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

Mangalore Security Services Private Limited, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps, Udupi

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

ITA 61/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Anil Dsouza, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept

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

M/S. Lakhotia Belting Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax, Ward, 4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 100/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Kedar Paranjape, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept

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

M/S. Elite India Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer-Ward-2(1)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 104/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Sudhindranath, ARFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR

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

return of income u/s 139(1) 3 M/s.Elite India Constructions Pvt. Ltd. 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. 5. Aggrieved, assessee has filed this appeal ... 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

Borchers India Chemicals P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ITO-Ward-25(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1354/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Us: “1. (A) The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Jurisdiction Exercised By Centralized Processing Centre Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') Involving Allowability Of Claim On Account Of Delayed Payment Of Employees' Contribution To Provident Fund (Under The Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952) Under Section 36(L)(Va) Of The Act.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 234BSection 234CSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43b

ITA No.1354/Mum/2021 A.Y.2018-19 1 Borchers India chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The ITO, Ward 25(2)(1) IN THE INCOME TAX

Bengaluru International Group of Service, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 648/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Bengaluru International Group Of Service, The Assistant Site No. 4 & 12, Sy.No. 96/1, Director Of Income Near South Ridge Apartment, Tax, Jakkur, Cpc, Bangalore – 560 064. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aalfb2496G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prabhakar .K.R, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.10.2021 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Herein After Called Cit(A), Is Opposed To Law, Evidences, Probabilities & Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit(Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Amounting To Rs.79,99,158/- Made By The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru, (Ao For Short) In Respect Of The Claim Towards Employees'

For Appellant: Shri Prabhakar .K.R, CA

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)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 this appeal before the Tribunal. 4.1 The Ld.AR submitted that an identical issue ... 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

Ashwin Shetty, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 600/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Ashwin Shetty, The Assistant No. 63/A, 13Th Cross, Commissioner Of J.P. Nagar 3Rd Phase, Income Tax, Bangalore – 560 078. Cpc, Pan: Anaps7985B Vs. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S.N. Shyanbhag, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 17-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.09.2021 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Appeals Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.16,11,013/-Being Belated Payment Of Employees Contribution Of Esi & Pf Paid Before Due Date For Filing The Return Of Income & An Amount Of Rs.18,362/- Being Club Expenses Incurred By The Employees Made By The A.O. Cpc In 143(1) Proceedings. 2. The Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Amendment By Way Explanation 2 To Section 36(1) (Va) & Explanation 5 To The Section 43B Made In The Finance Act 2021 Has Retrospective Effect As Such The Decisions Relied On By The Appellant Are Not Applicable.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Shyanbhag, Advocate

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

1) proceedings. 2. The CIT(A) erred in holding that the amendment by way explanation 2 to section 36(1) (va) and explanation 5 to the section 43B made in the finance Act 2021 has retrospective effect as such the decisions relied on by the appellant are not applicable. Page ... 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. The Club expenses disallowed was also upheld by the Ld.CIT(A) by holding that assessee did not make

M/S. Rahul Impex, Mumbai vs. ITO-26(3) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1629/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 36Section 43B

36(1 )(va) of the Act 3. Erred in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing 16,32,527/- under 2 section 36(1 )(va) of Act on the basis that there has been delay in depositing of employees' contribution towards Provident Fund (PF) as reported ... employees' contribution towards PF was made before the due date of filing the return of Income, accordingly such payment cannot be disallowed under section 36(1 )(va) or even under section 43B. 3. Brief facts of the case are that 143(1) adjustment done by the CPC in this case

Smt. P. Kavitha, Legal Representative of Late Sri. P. Gopinatha Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 666/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Joseph Varghese, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

debatable and hence appeal cannot be entertained from an order u/s 154 of the I.T.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. 6. Aggrieved, assessee has filed these appeals ... 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 4 ITA Nos.665-667/Bang/2021. Smt.P.Kavitha

Smt. P. Kavitha, Legal Representative of Late Sri. P. Gopinatha Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 665/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Joseph Varghese, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

P. Gopinatha Reddy (HUF), Through P. Vishwak Sena Reddy (Karta), Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 661/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Joseph Varghese, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR

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

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. 3 ITA No.661/Bang/2021. P Gopinatha Reddy (HUF) Through P.Vishwak ... 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

Ikon Labels Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 658/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Raj Kamal Ganeriwala, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR

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

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. 5. Aggrieved, assessee has filed this appeal before ... 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

Nuance Group India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)1), Bangalore

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

ITA 649/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR

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

taking cognizance of the submission and explanations furnished by the appellant and in disallowing an amount of INR 7,10,350 under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant had deposited ... jurisdictional Karnataka High Court ruling in the case of 298 ITR 141 CIT v. Sabari Enterprises. Accordingly, no disallowance was warranted under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. 2. The appellant craves leave to add to and / or to alter, amend, rescind, modify

Sri Panati Vikramdeva Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 529/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

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

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. 5. Aggrieved, assessee has filed this appeal before ... 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

New Consolidated Construction Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dditcpc, Bangalore

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

ITA 1632/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Hiro RaiFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

upholding the disallowance made by DCIT, CPC towards delayed payment of employee's contribution to provident fund of INR 50,47,759 under section 36(1)(va) of the Act , without appreciating the fact that the said payments were made within the due date of filing of appellant's income ... No.1632/Mum/2021 A.Y. 2017-18 3 New Consolidated Co. Limited Vs. DDIT,CPC applicability of the amended provisions of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va). The ITAT Bangalore vide ITA No. 596/Bang/2021 in the case of Shivanajappa Vijay Kumar (supra)after following the decision of Hon’ble High Court

M/S. Empower Activity Camps Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1625/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

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

income filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. A disallowance to the amount of Rs.66,885/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act on delayed payment made to employees’ contribution to Provident Fund was made by the Assessing Officer. This disallowance was made ... Aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee holding that Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) has been inserted to clarify that the provisions of section 43B shall not apply for the purpose of determining the due date. The Ld.CIT