← All Phrases

“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)

Suresh Dharnia, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

ITA 236/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Us :

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

assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us : “1. That the disallowance of amount made under Section 36(1)(va) is erroneous and bad in law. The learned AO and CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the contributions to EPF/ESI were deposited before ... been no loss caused to the employees or to the revenue. 3. That the learned authorities have erred in not appreciating that Section 36(1)(va) should be harmoniously construed with Section 43B. The appellant humbly submits that the legislative intent behind Section 43B is to allow genuine claims where

Suresh Dharnia, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

ITA 235/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us :

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

assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us : “1. That the disallowance of amount made under Section 36(1)(va) is erroneous and bad in law. The learned AO and CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the contributions to EPF/ESI were deposited before ... been no loss caused to the employees or to the revenue. 3. That the learned authorities have erred in not appreciating that Section 36(1)(va) should be harmoniously construed with Section 43B. The appellant humbly submits that the legislative intent behind Section 43B is to allow genuine claims where

Asirvad Micro Finance Limited, Anna Salai vs. Che-C(1)-251, Nungambakkam, Chennai

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

ITA 1138/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1138/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Prasanna Varma, F.C.A & MrFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 246Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिर्क

Stuti Construction Pvt Ltd, Nagda vs. ITO 2(2), Ujjain

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

ITA 326/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshistuti Construction Pvt. Ito 2(2), बनाम/ Ltd, Ujjain Vs. 53 Government Colony, Birla Gram, Nagda (Pan: Aahcs3932R) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri Anil Kumar Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 144Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 68A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Elsamex Maintenance Services Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle Gandhinagar, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 1215/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri T R Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Bhupal Rapelli, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 244ASection 36(1)(va)Section 41

called for while processing the return. 6. Per contra, Shri B. P. Srivastava, Ld. Sr. DR submitted that as per provision of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act there was no dispute about disallowance of belated payment of employee’s contribution of PF and ESI. He explained that ... upheld the position that the unpaid employees’ contribution to PF and ESI was income of the assessee in accordance with provision of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. section 2(24)(x) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had examined the intention of the legislature and clarified the provision

DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Creamline Dairy Products Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 1183/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, K C Devdas And CA C Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: Sri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80J

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “B” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA

Creamline Dairy Products Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 1157/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, K C Devdas And CA C Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: Sri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80J

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “B” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA

Creamline Dairy Products Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 1156/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, K C Devdas And CA C Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: Sri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80J

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “B” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA

Sula Vineyards Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 5(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2082/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (ACCOUNTANT

Vikas Dugar L/H of Late Shri Keshari Singh Dugar, Jaipur vs. PCIT (Central) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 388/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: or in the course of hearing of the appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 263

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Vikas Dugar L/H of Late Shri Keshari Singh Dugar, Jaipur vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result, the all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 387/JPR/2025[A.Y.2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 263

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Vikas Dugar Legal Heir of Late Shri Keshari Singh Dugar, Jaipur vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result, the all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 386/JPR/2025[A.Y. 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 263

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

M/S Rajasthan Knowledge Corporation Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

10. In view of the above discussion and findings, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A) is set aside whereby disallowance of bonus to the tune of Rs

ITA 279/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, While Challenging Order Dated 25.07.2022 Issued U/S 154 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Came To Be Dismissed, While Observing As Under:- “5.6 In View Of The Above, Mandatory Condition Of Making The Payment Of The Employees Contribution To The Pf & Esi Funds Within 15 Days Of The Close Of Every Month, Has Not Been Fulfilled By The Appellant So As To Be Entitled For Claim Of Deduction U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act. Accordingly, The Ao’S Action Of Disallowing The Amount On Account Of Disallowance Of Bonus Amount Of Rs. 14,03.,538/- & 2 M/S Rajasthan Knowledge Corporation Ltd., Jaipur. Employees Contrition To Pf Of Rs. 5,172/- Is Hereby Confirmed & Grounds Of Appeal Filed By The Appellant Are Treated As Dismissed.”

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

said amount could be made. Ld. AR for the appellant 5 M/S Rajasthan Knowledge Corporation Ltd., Jaipur. has rightly submitted that provisions of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act cannot be resorted to for disallowance of this amount. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the impugned order

Vgn Infra India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 573/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 573/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar & Shri. I. Dinesh, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.T
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(6)Section 36(1)(va)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज" के, उपा

ITO Ward-4(1), Gurgaon vs. Sandeep Sandha, Gurgaon

ITA 1195/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Samyak Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 246ASection 260ASection 36(1)(va)

Bothra vs. DCIT (2025) 174 taxmann.com 1199 (Chattisgarh); has already settled the issue in assessee's favour and against the department, the above section 36(1)(va) disallowance of ESI/PF is a highly debatable issue to be rejected in section 143(1) “processing”, reading as under: "Sanjay K. Agrawal ... Sandeep Sandha deposit of employees' share of contribution towards Employees' State Insurance (ESI) and Employees Provident Fund (EPF) of Rs.28,21,065/- under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act of 1961 was disallowed by the order dated 16.12.2021. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal

Servokon Systems Ltd, Delhi vs. Income Taxofficer, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid conditions

ITA 4509/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 Servokon Systems Ltd., Vs Ito, C-13, Radhu Palace Road, Ward-23(1), Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. Delhi – 110 002. Pan: Aabcs2570D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Wahaj Ahmad Khan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Wahaj Ahmad Khan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

date. 18. As a fallout and consequence of above-stated discussion, the prima facie disallowance of impugned contribution towards ESI and EPF under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act of 1961 made by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(1)(a) by order

The Mahil Gailan Cooperative Agriculture Service Society Limited, Mahil Gailan, Sbs Nagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jalandhar

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

ITA 106/ASR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Aditya Sharma, C.A
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(VA)Section 37(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Mcfills Enterprises Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, ITA No. 401/Ahd/2022 is partly allowed and ITA 402/Ahd/2022 is dismissed

ITA 402/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 401 & 402/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(18)Section 32(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member

Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Mcfills Enterprises Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, ITA No. 401/Ahd/2022 is partly allowed and ITA 402/Ahd/2022 is dismissed

ITA 401/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 401 & 402/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(18)Section 32(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member

Keshava Jute Mills Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 651/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.649 - 651/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Keshava Jute Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Ward-1 (1), Kolkata 16A, Brabourne Road, Tea Board, Dalhousie, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Aaeck 1349 P (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ankit Jalan, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 18.08.2022 & 04.08.2022 Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1044789194(1), Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1044474580(1) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1044474827(1), For The Assessment Years 2018-2019, 201-9-2020 & 2020-2021, Respectively. 2. Shri Ankit Jalan, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Ld. Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That Originally For The Assessment Years 2018-2019, 2019-2020 & 2020-2021, The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income On 27.10.2018, 31.10.2019 & 15.02.2021, Respectively. The Returns Filed By The Assessee Came To Be Processed & The Intimation U/S.143(1) Of The Act Came To Be Issued In All The Cases On 18.09.2019, 16.10.2020 &

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Jalan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Sr.DR
Section 116Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154(1)Section 200ASection 206CSection 250Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT