← 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)

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 117/GTY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 May 2025AY 2020-21

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

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 116/GTY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 May 2025AY 2019-20

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

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 115/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 May 2025AY 2018-19

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

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 114/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 May 2025AY 2017-18

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

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 113/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 May 2025AY 2017-18

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

Greenwood Resorts Private Limited, Guwahati vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati

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

ITA 112/GTY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 May 2025AY 2015-16

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

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 111/GTY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 May 2025AY 2016-17

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

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 110/GTY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 May 2025AY 2014-15

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

Emerson Electric Company (India)Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(2) (1) Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Mumbai

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 2323/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh&Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Emerson Electric Company (India) Dcit, Range-1(2)(1), Mumbai Private Limited, Delphi ‘B’ Wing, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, 601-603, Orchard Avenue, Mumbai Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai-400076. [Pan No. Aaace1260B] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 254(1)

prays that the aforesaid adjustment be deleted. 4 Emerson Electric Company (India) Pvt. Ltd. 10. Ground no. 10 Addition under provisions of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act INR 8,47,074 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP/AO erred ... making additions under section 36(1)(va) of the Act to the total income amounting to INR 8,47,074 i.e. with respect to delay in depositing contributions of the employees towards the provident fund and Employee State Insurance within the due date prescribed by respective Act as income

Louis Vuitton India Retail Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4348/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra(Ita No. 4348/Del/2024 (A.Y. 2020-21) Louis Vuitton India Vs. Dcit Retail Private Limited Circle-1(1) 901-A, 9Th Floor, Time Gurgaon, Tower, Mg Road, Haryana Gurgaon, Haryana Pan: Aaacl8230E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 253(1)Section 928Section 92D

erred in making a disallowance of INR 25,92,830 on account of late deposit of employees contribution to provident fund under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The Ld. CPC has failed to appreciate the fact that the contributions were deposited with the relevant authorities prior

Vikas Joshi, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 5(2)(5), Noida

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 2241/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. MANISH

High Range Foods Private Limited, Ernakulam vs. DCIT Corporate Cir 1(1), Kochi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 490/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2014-15 High Range Foods Private Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1) Limited, Kochi 28/3030, Vs. Cheruparambath Road, Kadavanthra, Ernakulam-682020 Pan : Aaach6076L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri P.M. Veeramani, Ca For Revenue : Smt. Leena Lal (Heard In Hybrid Bench) Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 4

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL

Ranbir Singh, Haryana vs. Ward-2, Ambala, Range Code-65, AO Number-94, Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Haryana

In the result, Assessee’s penalty is dismissed

ITA 851/CHANDI/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 851/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Ranbir Singh, Ao, बनाम K203,2Nd Floor, Awho, Ward-2, Vikram Vihar, Sector 27, Ambala. Vs. Panchkula, Haryana-134116 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Avwps0410K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Hemant Jain, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.05.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14-06-2024 Of Ld. Addl /Jcit (Appeals), Mudurai Folder For A.Y. 2021-22. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 43BSection 851

made a substantial error, both factually and legally, by misinterpreting provisions of Section 36(1) (va) read with Section 2(24)(x) and Section 43B, along with various legal precedents relevant to the assessment year 2020-21, thereby upholding the disallowance of Rs. 10,03,117/-due to the late ... disallowing the employee contribution of 851-Chd-2024 Ranbir Singh, Panchkula 3 Rs. 10,03,117/-under Section 36(1) (va) with respect to PF/ESI, when the same was deposited by the assessee before the due date of filing the return of income. The action

Sis Cash Services Private Limited, Patna vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

ITA 240/PAT/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 May 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Kavita Jha, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

case and in law, the NFAC erred in upholding the adjustment made by CPC amounting to Rs.2,25,91,254 under section 36(1)(va) of the Act, being employees' contribution to Provident Fund on the ground that the same was deposited beyond the time period specified. 3. That ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the NF AC erred in not appreciating that the amendments in the provisions of section 36(1)(va) as well as section 43B of the Act were introduced vide Finance Act, 2021 and were applicable from assessment year

Gilbarco Veeder Root India Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 286/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.283, 284, 285 & 286/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 32

Addition of deferred tax Rs.9,70,01,073/- twice while computing the Book Profits under section 115JB of the Act. iii) Disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act amounting to Rs.3,144/- on the contention that the assessee remitted the contributions received from the assessee's employees after

Gilbarco Veeder Root India Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 285/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.283, 284, 285 & 286/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 32

Addition of deferred tax Rs.9,70,01,073/- twice while computing the Book Profits under section 115JB of the Act. iii) Disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act amounting to Rs.3,144/- on the contention that the assessee remitted the contributions received from the assessee's employees after

Gilbarco Veeder Root India Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 284/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.283, 284, 285 & 286/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 32

Addition of deferred tax Rs.9,70,01,073/- twice while computing the Book Profits under section 115JB of the Act. iii) Disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act amounting to Rs.3,144/- on the contention that the assessee remitted the contributions received from the assessee's employees after

Gilbarco Veeder Root India Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 283/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.283, 284, 285 & 286/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 32

Addition of deferred tax Rs.9,70,01,073/- twice while computing the Book Profits under section 115JB of the Act. iii) Disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act amounting to Rs.3,144/- on the contention that the assessee remitted the contributions received from the assessee's employees after

Desai Infra Projects(I) Private Limited, Pune vs. PCIT, Central Pune, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1851/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. Pathank, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA

Raiganj Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Uttar Dinajpur vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 2(1), Jalpaiguri

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 1923/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 156Section 250Section 40

justified by confirming the disallowance of Employees' Contribution to Provident Fund of Rs.16,84,704/- as income u/s 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and adding the same with returned income. 10. THAT the Ld. CIT (A)-NFAC, has grossly erred ... justified by confirming the disallowance of Employees' Contribution to Provident Fund of Rs.6,23,893/ as income u/s 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and adding the same with returned income without considering the fact that due date under the relevant