“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)

Megneil Tech Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 616/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Ms. Sanjana Dave, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 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

Megneil Tech Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 615/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Ms. Sanjana Dave, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Maheshwari Woods Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 586/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sri.H.Ganpatlal Kawad, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR

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

Food Pvt. Ltd., reported in 304 ITR 308 (SC), the CIT(A) 3 ITA Nos.585-586/Bang/2021 M/s.Maheshwari Woods Private Limited 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 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 of M/s. Shakuntala Agarbathi Company

Maheshwari Woods Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 585/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sri.H.Ganpatlal Kawad, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR

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

Kuduva Satishbabu Sheela, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 584/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

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

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

Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred on facts and in law in upholding the impugned order dated 14th March, 2021 making the addition under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 1.1 That the NFAC erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that ... 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

Gowrishankar Chemicals Private Limited, Tumkur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 570/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sandeep, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR

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

facts in holding that the amendment brought vide Finance Act, 2021 in Explanation 2 2 M/s.Gowrishankar Chemicals Private Limited to section 36(1)(va) of the Act and explanation 5 to section 43B of the Act is retrospective in nature even though CBDT has clarified in the Explanatory Memorandum ... appeal of the assessee. The CIT(A) noticed the judicial pronouncements for and against the assessee and 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

Srinivas Achar Mohankumar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 568/BANG/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2021AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Mahesh Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, Joint CIT-DR

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

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 ... 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. Skava Electric Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 565/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Kusuma Yathish, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, Joint CIT-DR

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

binding precedent issued by Jurisdictional High Court. d) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the provisions of Section 43B overrides Section 36(1)(va) and that disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) was applicable only if the said contributions are not remitted within the due date ... ld.CIT(A) erred in not considering the factual backdrop that the legislature has not only incorporated necessary amendments in Section 36(1)(va) as well as 43B made vide Finance Act, 2021 to this effect but also the CBDT has issued Memorandum of Explanation that the same applies w.e.f

Maf Clothing Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 563/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.R.Venkata Raman, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Srinath Sadanala, Addl.CIT-DR

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

Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that the amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2021 by way of insertion of Explanation 1 to Section 36(1)(va) is retrospective in nature and consequently erred in upholding the addition made by DCIT, CPC on the said ground. In holding ... ignoring the “Notes on clauses” at the time of introduction of the Finance Bill, 2021, which clearly says that eh amendment in Section 36(1)(va) will take effect from 1st April, 2021 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2021-2022 and subsequent assessment years. Therefore

M/S. Fashion Matrix Clothing, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 550/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

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

For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar L

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

making an adjustment u/s 143(1)[a] and adding Rs. 53,46,787/-to Return of income filed by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va)r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Act. 5. The addition made by the Assessing Officer by way of prima facie adjustment ... 31/03/of previous year, on contrary there is no Income under section 2(24)(x), so as to invoke provision of section 36(1)(va), except for month of march, which is also paid within due date under explanation 1 to section 36((1)(va). 9. The learned A.O erred

Vidhi Clothing Company, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assesseeis allowed

ITA 369/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri Chanda Poojariassessment Year :2018-19 M/S. Vidhi Clothing Company, Vs. Dcit, No.4, 2Nd Cross, Mysore Road, Central Processing Centre, Opp. Toll Gate, Vinayakanagar, Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 026. Pan : Aahfv 9512 F Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, 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

Mavinahalli Shivananjappa Vijay Kumar, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 597/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Hegde, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Addl.CIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 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 sub clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. 4. 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

Stirred Creative Advertising Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 594/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Susan Mathew, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 6

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT

Shardha Nand Sharma, Faridabad vs. Itd, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1140/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad[Assessment Year : 2018-19) & [Assessment Year : 2019-20)

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

facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by applying amendments to section 36(1 )(va) and “Explanation 5” inserted to Section 43B introduced in the Finance Act 2021 retrospectively. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned ... facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by applying amendments to section 36(1 )(va) and “Explanation 5” inserted to Section 43B introduced in the Finance Act 2021 retrospectively. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned

Shardha Nand Sharma, Faridabad vs. Itd, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1139/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad[Assessment Year : 2018-19) & [Assessment Year : 2019-20)

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

Digicall Teleservices Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6267/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2006-07] Digicall Teleservices Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit (Formerly Page Point Services India Central Circle-25 Pvt. Ltd.) D-7, Dhawandeep New Delhi Apartment, 6, Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi Pan-Aabcp794Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 09.12.2021

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(24)Section 36Section 36(1)(Va)

added as income of the assessee by stating that the same is not allowable as deduction under section 36(1)(Va) of the I.T. Act’ as the appellant tailed to deposit the said amount within the due date as mentioned in the Employee provident fund ... added as income of the assessee by stating that the same is not allowable as deduction under section 36(1 )(Va) of the I.T. Act as the assessee failed to deposit the said amount within due date as mention in the ESI Act arid

ACIT, Circle- 19(2), New Delhi vs. Pc Jewellers Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6650/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6649/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 6650/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs Pc Jewellers Ltd., Circle-19(2), C-54, Preet Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcp5443Q Co No. 68/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Co No. 74/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Pc Jewellers Ltd., Vs Acit, C-54, Preet Vihar, Circle-19(2), New Delhi-110092 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcp5443Q Assessee By : Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.12.2021

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 2(24)(X)Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R

ACIT, Circle- 19(2), New Delhi vs. Pc Jewellers Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6649/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 2(24)(X)Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R

Maxx Solutions, Gurgaon vs. CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1032/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2019-20 Maxx Solutions, Vs. Cpc, 958-960, Tower Bi, Bengaluru. 9Th Floor, Sapaze It Park, Sohna Road, Sector-49, Gurgaon. Pan: Aavfm7455N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd July, 2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 26Th October, 2019 Declaring Total Income At Rs.18,50,524/-. The Return Was Processed By The Cpc, Bangalore U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 06.03.2020 Wherein Disallowance Of Rs.5,78,203/- Was Made As Per Provisions Of Section 36(1)(Va) On Account Of Delayed Payment Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf & Esi. In Appeal, The Ld.Cit(A), Relying On Various Decisions, Upheld The Action Of The Ao. 3. Aggrieved With Such Order Of The Cit(A), The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal By Raising The Following Grounds:- “ The Ld. Cit(A) Was Wrong In Confirming Addition Of Rs.5,78,203/- U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The It Act, 1961 Without Any Base.”

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

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

Bangalore u/s 143(1) of the Act on 06.03.2020 wherein disallowance of Rs.5,78,203/- was made as per provisions of section 36(1)(va) on account of delayed payment of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A), relying on various decisions, upheld the action

Northern India Trading Co, New Delhi vs. Dcitcpc, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1956/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2018-19 Northern India Trading Co., Vs. Dcit, C/O Ssar & Associates, Ca, Cpc, 4852/24, Ff Ansari Road, Bengaluru. Near Sanjivan Hospital, Daryaganj, New Delhi. Pan: Aahfn1944R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sachin Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

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

adjustment of Rs.4,28,075/- was made on account of late deposit of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI as per provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A), relying on various decisions, upheld the action of the CPC, Bangalore. 3. Aggrieved with such