← 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)

M/S Gobind Industries, Ludhiana vs. Aacit/DCIT, Circle-VI, Ludhiana

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 240/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Mukhi (Advocate ) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH PHYSICAL HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND

Pradeep Ramkrishna Rote, Jalgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(3) Jalgaon, Jalgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1857/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

case for AY 2019-20 was relied upon wherein under the similar set of facts, it has been held that no disallowance under section 36(1)(va) can be made. 4.1 The above submission of the assessee was not found to be acceptable by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Relying ... lead appeal, for convenience. In all these appeals, the common question involved is with respect to the interpretation of Section 36(1) (va) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, "IT Act"), and whether the appellant assessees are entitled to deduction of amounts deposited by them towards

Schindler India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Range 15(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 7311/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

date of filing the return of incоте. The Appellant prays that the disallowance of payment of Rs.64,426/- to PF under section 36(1)(va) of the Act be deleted. Ground No. 5: On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has granted

Schindler India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-Cir-15(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 7326/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Chandani ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

date of filing the return of incоте. The Appellant prays that the disallowance of payment of Rs.64,426/- to PF under section 36(1)(va) of the Act be deleted. Ground No. 5: On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has granted

Rajesh Kumar, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 292/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

liability under law – in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part of the employers’ income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed ... virtue of Section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character

Classic Display Systems Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax (CPC) Bengaluru, Bengaluru

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

ITA 3542/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Classic Display Systems Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Adit (Cpc), S 179/B, Panchsheel Park, New Bengaluru Delhi-110017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccc2109D

For Appellant: Shri Sanat Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

liability under law – in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part of the employers’ income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed ... virtue of Section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character

JCIT(in-Situ), Circle-1, Patna vs. Technoculture Building Centre Private Limited, Patna

ITA 41/PAT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Patna03 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
Section 142(1)Section 145Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

case, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in making wrong addition of Employee Provident Fund and ESI Contribution Rs. 27,95,682/- under section 36(1)(va) of the act without following the legal provisions in this regard. The addition is totally arbitrary and is not legal, proper and justified ... 36(1)(va) of the Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that employee contributions to PF and ESI are governed exclusively by Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, and not by Section 43B of the Act. The court emphasized that employee contributions must be deposited within

Dlf Limited, New Delhi vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 675/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2019-20 Vs. Nfac, Dlf Limited, 9Th Floor, Dlf Centre, Delhi Sansad Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Vijay Mehta, Ca Department By Ms. Suman Malik, Cit(Dr)

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

file perused. 2. The assessee’s instant appeal canvasses its sole substantive grievance seeking to reverse both the learned lower authorities’ action invoking section 36(1)(va) disallowance of employees’ contribution towards provident fund amounting to Rs. 53,74,605/- in assessment order dated 30th September, 2021 and upheld

Intelligent Communication System India Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-12(1), Delhi

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

ITA 5532/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarintelligent Communication System India Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 12 (1), First Floor, Administrative Building, Delhi. Okhla Industrial Estate, Delhi – 110 020. (Pan : Aaaci0691N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Farhat Miyan, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Order : 03.06.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 30.09.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “On The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of The Rs.1,38,75,883/- Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act. The Action Of The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) & Ld. Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Is Wrong, Misconceived & Unjustified Therefore It Should Be Quashed.”

For Appellant: Shri Farhat Miyan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

circumstances of the case and in law the ld. NFAC has erred in confirming the disallowance of the Rs.1,38,75,883/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. The action of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) and Ld. Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) is wrong

Tarsem Chand Rana, Una vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, ITO Ward 98, Una, Range Code 37

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1085/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1085/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Tarsem Singh Rana, Ito, बनाम H.No. 4, Kathoh, Ward 98, Khurwain, Una Vs. Bangana H.P. 174321 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aawpr5715R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Ajit Kumar Jha, Advocate (Virtual Mode) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Ajit Kumar Jha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Bangalore, as the contributions towards PF/ESI, which were made within the prescribed time limits under Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, were disallowed under Section 143(1) of the Act dated 22.12.2021, later rectified under Section 154 of the Act dated 25.10.2022, rendering

Shreenath Mhaskoba Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-5, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 305/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.305/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shreenath Mhaskoba Sakhar Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. Karkhana Ltd., Survey No.12/2, 2Nd Floor, Meghdoot Building, Behind Bharat Petroleum Pump, Hadpasar, Pune- 411028. Pan : Aahcs3018G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.D. Bhide Revenue By : Shri A. D. Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 02.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-7, Kolkata [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “Being Aggrieved By An Order Passed U/Sec.250 By The Ld. Cit(A)- Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred For Short As The Ld. Cit(A)) Your

For Appellant: Shri B.D. BhideFor Respondent: Shri A. D. Kulkarni
Section 116Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 438Section 43BSection 80Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Pradeep Kisanlal Boob, Nashik vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Nashik

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

ITA 189/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.189/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 134Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Asst CIT CC 38, Mumbai vs. Uniphos Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3534/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘K’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Addl CIT Cen RG IX, Mumbai vs. Uniphos Enterprises Ltd ( Formlery Known As United Phosphorus Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 6236/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘K’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Uniphos Enterprises Ltd ( Formerly Known As United Phosphorus Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cen RG IX, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 6224/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘K’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

The ACIT CC-38, Mumbai vs. M/S. United Phosphorous Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1822/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2002-2003

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘K’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

M/S. United Phosphorus Ltd(Now Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd), Mumbai vs. The DCIT Cen Cir-38, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1787/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2002-2003

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘K’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Baldev Singh & Sons, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 43(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3103/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.3103/Del/2023, A.Y. 2021-22 Baldev Singh & Sons Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 14-A, Najafgarh Road, Income Tax, Circle-43(1), New Delhi Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Road Pan: Aaahb4937M New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. G. S. Kohli, Ca Respondent By Sh. Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.10.2023 Of The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai [Addl. Cit(A)]. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised In This Appeal: “1. That The Learned Cit(Appeal) Had Failed To Appreciate The Written Submission & The Documents Filed Before Him & Thus The Justice Had Not Been Given To The Humble Appellant.

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 80Section 80I

under section 139 of the Act. Further, the AO-CPC also disallowed the claim of deduction of Rs. 6,808/- of PF under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed rectification application under section 154 of the Act which was not acceded to on the reasoning ... provident fund deposited after the specified date. 3.2 The disallowance of deduction under section 80IB of the Act and the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act as mentioned above are in dispute before us. 4. The Ld. AR Submitted that the core issue involved in this appeal

Govind Agarwal, Gwalior vs. DCIT- Circle 2(1), Gwalior

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 65/AGR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

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

terms of impugned order dated 26.04.2019 has made disallowance of delayed payment of employees’s contribution towards PF/ESI by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) which stood confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) by placing reliance on various judgements

Greenwood Resorts Private Limited, Guwahati vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Guwahati

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 118/GTY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 153CSection 250Section 36Section 40A(3)Section 68

employees account in the relevant funds on or before due date. Hence, the assessee could not fulfil the condition as laid down in section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and accordingly Rs.3,02,334Z- is treated as income under section 2(24)(x) of the Income