“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)

S & G Lifestyles, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 745/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar, V., ARFor Respondent: Shri Sri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

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

S & G Lifestyles, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 744/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar, V., ARFor Respondent: Shri Sri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

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

M/S. R.R. Forgings Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 735/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sri.Vishal S.RaoFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 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

M/S. Cadopt Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 726/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sri.R.E.Balasubramaniyam, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR

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

ld.AO and in doing so, he failed to appreciate that Section 43B of the Income Tax Act has an overriding effect on Section 36(1)(va) in accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which has held that deduction shall be allowed so long as the payment ... Income Tax Act. 4. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the action of the ld.CIT(A) in treating the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B vide Finance Act, 2021 as retrospective in nature is untenable and 2 ITA No.726/Bang/2021. M/s.Cadopt Technologies Private Limited. unwarranted inasmuch

Radford Global Limited, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 709/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Radford Global Ltd., Vs Adit, Office No.704, Wellington Business Cpc, Park 1, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri Bangalore. East, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400059. Pan-Aabcm5771E Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 06.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.02.2022

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

appellant has contended that the Assessing Officer erred in making an adjustment of Rs. 21,96,923/- (u/s 143(1)(a) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act), being Rs. 21,96,923/- received towards fund set-up under the provisions of the ESI Act, 1948 which remained ... return is required to be added back, 5.1.6 The Income Tax Act has been amended by Finance Act, 2021. The amended section 36(1)(va) is reproduced below: "Other deductions. 36. (1) The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect of the matters dealt with

Falck India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 9(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed ex-parte

ITA 7693/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

Rs.4,523/- respectively after due date as prescribed under the relevant Act/ Rules. The Assessing Officer accordingly resorted to the additions under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act. 6. It is the case of the assessee before lower authorities that it has deposited

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

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

ITA 740/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh G., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, 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

Sri. P. Harshavardhana Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 736/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2019-20 Shri. Puttireddi Harshavardhana Reddy, Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, No.401/4 14Th Main, Venkateshwara Lyt Central Processing Centre, Madiwala, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 068. Pan : Aebpr 8378 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor 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

Devarayapatana Thimmappa Paramesha, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 727/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri. Devarayapatana Thimmappa Paramesha, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income No.311, Block B3, Sobha Opal, 39Th Cross, Tax, 18Th Main, Jayanagar 4Th Block, Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru – 560 041. Bengaluru. Pan : Acopp 0450 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, 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

Yenepoya Food and Beverages India Private Limited, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(2), Mangalore

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

ITA 567/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D’souzaFor Respondent: Sri.Kiran D, Addl.CIT-DR

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

grounds raised read as follows:- “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in applying the amendment by Finance Act 2021 to section 36(1)(va) and 43B retrospectively for assessment for A.Y. 2018-19 vide order u/s 143(1) dated 17.10.2019. 2. The disallowance made in intimation u/s 143(1 ... 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. 6. Aggrieved, assessee has filed this appeal before

Surender Kumar Arora, New Dellhi vs. Ward 29(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1828/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Amit Shukla

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

some cases this gap is just for 1 or 2 days. He therefore submitted that in such a situation no disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act is called for and for this proposition, he placed reliance on the decision in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL ... have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that there has been slight delay in the deposit of employees’ contribution

M/S. Enphase Solar Energy Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 723/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Enphase Solar Energy Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income 259, 2Nd Main, 6Th Cross, 2Nd Floor, Tax, Indiranagar, Stage 1, Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru – 560 038. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaece 7259 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Suresh Muthukrishnan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. Suresh Muthukrishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

Provident Fund contributions remitted after the due date, by coming to the conclusion that the same need to be disallowed in terms of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The details of the contributions collected from the Employees and the actual date of remittance to the government was given ... submitted that the AO has erred in not appreciating that the meaning of ‘DUE DATE” in terms of Section 36(1)(va) ought to be recknoned as the DUE DATE for filing of the Return of Income under section 139(1) of the Act and not the “DUE DATE

M/S. Loka Shikshana Trust, Hubli vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 718/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Loka Shikshana Trust, The Assistant Post Box No. 30, Director Of Income Samyukta Karnataka, Tax, Koppikar Road, Cpc, Hubli – 580 020. Bangalore Vs. Pan: Aaatl1086H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kumar, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 07-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.10.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That, The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, In So Far As Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant, Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Is Erred In Fact & In Law In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer Of Adding The Amount Of Delayed

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar, CA

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

fact and in law in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in coming to conclusion that insertion of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 4 to section 43B by the Finance Act 2021 has retrospective effect, in spite of categorical assertion in Notes on Clauses ... 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

Asia Seeds India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC), Bangalore

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

ITA 715/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sri.Rajkumar 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 3 ITA Nos.714-715/Bang/2021 M/s.Asia Seed India (P) Ltd. 43B of the I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and has got retrospective operation ... 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

Asia Seeds India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 714/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

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

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

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

Sri, Ramachandra Naveen, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 710/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2019-20 Shri. Ramachandra Naveen, Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, No.4140 Sam Chambers, 80 Feet Road, Central Processing Centre, Girinagar, 4Th Phase, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 085. Pan : Acvpn 6688 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Vijay Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Vijay Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Sivan Securities Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 708/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Sivan Securities Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 23/2, Coffeeday Square, Income Tax, Vittal Mallya Road, Cpc, Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaccs5138G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri C. Ramesh, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 07-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.10.2021 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Opposed To The Facts Of The Case & Law Applicable To It. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.11,05,657/- Invoking The Provisions Of Section 143(1)(A)(Ii) Of The Act, Holding That The Said Amount Is Assessable Under The Provisions Of Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CA

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

invoking the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the act, holding that the said amount is assessable under the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the act. Page 2 of 8 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the fact that, the issue ... High Courts and also Supreme Court. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in following Explanation-2 below provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the act and also Explanation-5 below provisions of section 43B of the act ignoring the position of law that, the said explanations