“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. Canadian International School Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 55/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Mishra, 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

Transact Bpo Services India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 51/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

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

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

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 49/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajkamal Ganeriwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT) Bangalore

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Indauto Filters, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 48/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri K. Gururaj Acharya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

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

N. T. Rahamathulla Khan Associates, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 44/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

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

Karnataka State Electronics Development Corporation Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 599/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2018-19 M/S. Karnataka State Electronics Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Development Corporation Ltd., Income Tax, 2Nd Floor, Ttmc “A” Block, Cpc, Bengaluru. Bmtc, Shanthinagar, K. H. Road, Bengaluru–560 027. Pan : Aabck 6661 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Raghavendra R Chakravarthy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Raghavendra R Chakravarthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

judgment is binding on the assessee and department. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in relying on the amendment made in section 36(1)(va) though the said amendment is applicable from the AY 2021-22 and onwards. In the recent Judgment by Hyderabad Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ... case of Value Momentum Software Services Private Limited (order dated 19.05.2021) it has been held that the amended provisions of section 36(1)(va) has no application since this amendment is applicable from 01.04.2021 onwards and it is further held that it should be understood that the legislature itself

Radius Engineering Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 45/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh, G., CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Technocon Builders, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1) Represented by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajagopal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Channa Keshava, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 601/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sri.S.N.Shyanbhog, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT-DR

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

1) proceedings. 2. The CIT(A) erred in holding that the amendment by way of 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 ... case of CIT Vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd., reported in 304 ITR 308 (SC), the CIT(A) concluded that 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

Umberto Ceramics Interanational Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1663/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Yogesh ShahFor Respondent: Achal Sharma

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

AdhyarAnandBhavan Sweets India P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No.402 & 403/Chennai/2021) on the issue of 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 of Karnataka held that the amendment made to section 36(1)(va) of the Act will have prospective application. We have also perused the decision of ITAT Chennai in the case of Adhyar Anand Bhavan Sweets India P. Ltd. (supra), wherein after following the decision of Hon’ble High

High Tensile Fastnuts (India) P..Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1572/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale&, Shri Gagan Goyalhigh Tensile Fastnuts Vs. Dcit – Cpc (India) Pvt Ltd., Bangalore, 601, 6Th Floor, Karnataka-560100 Goldcrest Business Park, Opposite Shreyas Cinema, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai – 400086. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach1190D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Mehul Shah.Ar Respondent By : Shri.Tejinder Pal Singh Anand. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Shri. Mehul Shah.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Tejinder Pal Singh

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

paid towards Employees' Contribution to ESIC and RS. 1,56,985 paid towards Employee's Contribution to Provident fund invoking provisions of section 36 (1) (Va) without appreciating that the relevant provisions have been read down by various Courts across the Country holding that such contribution is allowable as deduction ... 1) by CPC on account of appellants failure to pay the employees 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 u/s 143(1)(a)(iv). The order

Vishalakshi Vishwanath, Thane vs. CIT Appeal Thane 2, Thane

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

ITA 1445/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Rupa GamiFor Respondent: Achal Sharma

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 250Section 250(6)Section 43B

Vijay Kumar (supra) and AdhyarAnandBhavan Sweets India P. Ltd. (supra) on the issue of 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 of Karnataka held that the amendment made to section 36(1)(va) of the Act will have prospective application. We have also perused the decision of ITAT Chennai in the case of Adhyar Anand Bhavan Sweets India P. Ltd. (supra), wherein after following the decision of Hon’ble High

Satish Engineering Works, Mumbai vs. Central Processing Centre, Bangalore., Judicial Assessing Officer:Ward-21(3)(2), Mumbai, Banglore

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

ITA 1028/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

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

Rs.9,577608/- which was assessed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, CPC at Rs.15,85,905/- by making addition / disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of Rs.6,28,297/- being any sum receipt from employees as contribution to provident fund / ESIC. The assessee agitated the addition before National Faceless

Sri Marigantu Narasimha Chari, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 38/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Alert Detective Force, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Alert Detective Force, Vs. Dcit, B 376, 9Th Cross, Peenya 1St Stage, Central Processing Centre, Ring Road, Peenya Industrial Area, Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 058. Pan : Abcfa 0594 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahesh G, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: . V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Mahesh G, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(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

Puyvast Maritime India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1) Represented by Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 30/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajgopal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 30Section 32Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

paid by the employer in the capacity of employer. 5. The learned Assessing Officer has erred, in law and in facts, by applying section 36(1)(va) instead of Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. The learned Assessing Officer has erred, in law and in facts

Mangilal Padamchand, Mysore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 25/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sri.Harish, ARFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT-DR

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

violation of Principles of Natural Justice. 3. The fact and circumstances of the case does not warrant addition or disallowance in terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. 4. The Appellant submits that the impugned addition / disallowance is contrary to the settled principles ... case of CIT Vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd., reported in 304 ITR 308 (SC), the CIT(A) concluded that 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

M/S. Pilvo Communications Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 716/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sri.Prashanth G.S., CAFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT-DR

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

case. 3(a) The action of the authorities below in disallowing the employees contribution towards Provident Fund and Employee State Insurance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act of Rs.27,85,688 is bad in law. 2 M/s.Plivo Communications Private Limited. (b) The authorities below erred in making ... 1) of the Act under the facts of the case. 4. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B by the Finance Act, 2021 is applicable prospectively i.e. from 01.04.2021 and therefore the disallowance made is unwarranted on the facts

Pmgs India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Range-1(2)(4), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1409/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Sh. M.M. Golvala, CAFor Respondent: Sh. R. A. Dhyani, Sr. DR

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

short ‘CPC’) under section 143((1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) proposing adjustment under section 36(1)(va) in respect of late payment of PF. In response to the aforesaid notice, the assessee filed reply stating that the payments were made before ... date of filing return of income and hence, no disallowance of the aforesaid expenditure under section 36(1)(va) of the Act should be made. In support of its submissions, the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions

N.R. Kumaraswamy, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 26/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Mrinalini R., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

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