“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)

Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd, Lucknow vs. Dy.CIT Range-6, Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 142/LKW/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.A. & Sh. ShubhamFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl CIT (DR)

Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(v)

computation with regard to the same were submitted before us. With regard to the addition of Rs.41,73,570/- as employees contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was submitted that the said ground had not been raised before the ld. CIT(A). However ... also taken an insurance policy and therefore, there was no loss to the bank on this account. With regard to the claim under section 36(1)(va) and the claim under section 36(1)(viia) and 36(1)(viii), the Id. Addl CIT DR had no objection to the matter

Babian, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer (1), Lucknow-New

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 167/LKW/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharybabian Income Tax Officer (1) V. B-155, Bhootnath Market, Lucknow New, Indira Nagar, Lucknow-226016. Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 57, Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Aacfb9247N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Devashish Mehrotra, Ca Respondent By: Shri. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 23 04 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 04 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Devashish Mehrotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl

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

deduction. 4. That the Id. CIT(A) has misinterpreted the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 by adding the Explanation 2 in Section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to Sec. 43B by treating the same to having retrospective effect which is contrary to the intent of the Legislature

J M D Services Private Limited, Patna vs. Joint Commissioner, Pune

ITA 423/PAT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA BENCH”, PATNA (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI

Rajesh Sinha, Jaipur vs. Ld. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 154/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Phophalia, C.A. (through V.C.)For Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR

Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

reason being that the same were not paid on the due date. The contention Ld. AR for the appellant is that explanation to section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Act came to be inserted by Finance Act, 2021, w.e.f. 01.04.2021, and as such, Learned CIT(A) fell

Sumita Singhal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-17(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 577/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 194Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

confirming disallowance of INR 62,04,444 made by the assessing officer under section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding the due date for deposit of employee's contribution to provident ... respective Act. 4.2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding that amendment made vide Finance Act. 2021 under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and section 43B of the Act is retrospective in nature. 5. That the CIT(A) erred on facts

Ethos Limited, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee I

ITA 873/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble Vice- & Sh. Krinwant Sahay, Hon’Ble(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No.873/Chandi/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 41

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] has erred in upholding the addition of 218,73,058/ made by the Assessing Officer under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of the delayed deposit of employees' contributions to Provident Fund (PF) and Employees' State Insurance ... timelines provided by the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) should not be disallowed, the addition I.T.A. No.873/Chandi/2024 3 Assessment Year: 2021-22 under Section 36(1)(va) is unwarranted and inequitable, and should therefore be set aside. 4. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Learned

Emson Gears Ltd., Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal stand dismissed

ITA 709/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 709/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Emson Gears Ltd. Dcit, Circle I, बनाम/ Vs. D-42, Phase V, Focal Point, Ludhiana. Dhandari Kalan, Punjab. 141010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaace-3697-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sarabjit Garg (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22-04-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-04-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Addl. / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Mumbai [Cit(A)] Dated 27-09-2023 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issued By Cpc U/S 143(1) On 03-06-2020 Disallowing Late Payment Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf / Esi In Terms Of Sec.43B R.W.S. 36(1)(Va) As Well As Sec.2(24)(X). The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Same, Inter-Alia, By Relying Upon The Decision Of Hon’Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Checkmate Services P. Ltd Vs. Cit (2022) 143

For Appellant: Sh. Sarabjit Garg (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

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

character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of Section 2(24)(x) and therefore, subjected to conditions spelt out by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked

General Industrial Contros Ltd., Pune vs. DCIT Circle 8, Pune

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 38/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”ए” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE

Schott Glass India Private Liited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 6118/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant (Am) & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan (Jm) Schott Glass India Private Ltd. Dcit-3(2)(1) 203, 2Nd Floor, Dynasty A Wing Aayakar Bhavan Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri Vs. M.K. Road East, Mumbai-400 059. Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aadcs8583L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta & ShriFor Respondent: Ms. Kanupriya Damor

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234CSection 36(1)(va)

assessee/appellant filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who has dismissed the same observing that the said amount needs to be disallowed under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act as the said amount which is employees’ contribution towards Provident Fund has not been ... thus submitted that the assessee was prevented from making online payment within stipulated time due to website glitches and therefore, the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) is not justified in the peculiar circumstances owing to doctrine of impossibility. 6 Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd. 3.1 It was contended that

Mantra Exports Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6273/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Fca India Automobiles Private Limited (Surviving Entity After the Merger of Pca Motors Pvt Ltd), Pune vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre

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

ITA 1781/PUN/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Apr 2025

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Ms. Shilpa N. C

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

addition made in intimation order under section 143(1) of the Act amounting to INR 4,297,560 on account of disallowance under section 36(1)(va) and section 37 of the Act (i.e. disallowed twice) even though the Appellant had already considered the same as disallowance in its return

Bajaj Hindusthan Sugar Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 814/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafiqui (Sr. AR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 7Q

take its nature from the P a g e | 5 A.Y. 2023-24 Bajaj Hindustan Sugar Limited principal in terms of provisions of Section 36(1)(va) with respect to any sum received by the assessee from any of its employees to which provision of Section 2 (24)(x) applied ... employees’ account in the relevant fund or funds on or before the ‘due date’, the assessee was entitled to the deduction. Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) made it clear that for the purpose of that provision, “due date” meant the date by which the assessee, as an employer

Ssb Contractual Services Private Limited, Nayagaon vs. ITO Ward 6(1), Mohali

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 342/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Section 36(1)(va)

single issue namely, ld. A.Y.2019-20 2 CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.24,95,732/- which was made under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee was unable to pay employees’ contribution to respective ESI/PF Accounts within the due date, therefore, following

Shakti Hormann Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle -3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 452/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita-Tp No.451/Hyd/2022 & 452/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Shakti Hormann Private Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax Hyderabad Circle-3(1) [Pan : Aadcs4024Q] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B.Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/04/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/ 21/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Assessment Orders Dated 21.07.2022 & 28.07.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) In Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (“The Drp”) U/S 144C(5) Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. 2. For The Assessment Year 2017-18, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

that all the payments in relation to the prescribed in the Act. 10.3. The Ld. A.O erred in making the additions not considering section 36(1)(va) r.w.s 43B of the Act, that expenditure is allowable if paid within due date of filing return of income

DCIT 2 2 1, Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 992/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeyes Bank Limited Vs Additional Commissioner Of Income Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor, Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent Additional Commissioner Of Vs Yes Bank Limited Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thard &Ms.Vidhi SalotFor Respondent: Ms. Ramapriya Raghavan - CIT DR&

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

1) of the Act by the CPC, Bengaluru. During the processing, the CPC disallowed an amount of Rs.9,75,96,266/- claimed under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, representing employees’ contributions to EPF and ESI, which had been deposited beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective statutes ... deleted the addition of Rs.30crore made under Section 43B but upheld the disallowance of Rs.9,75,96,266/- under Section 36(1)(va), as well as the interest levied under Section 234C. Being dissatisfied with the order, both the assessee and the revenue have filed appeals before us. ITA 1093/Mum/2025

Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula

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

ITA 1093/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thard &Ms.Vidhi SalotFor Respondent: Ms. Ramapriya Raghavan - CIT DR&

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Aculife Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1997/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 41

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Makarand Vasant

Aculife Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1996/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 41

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Makarand Vasant

Honeywell International India Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-10(1), Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2933/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Honeywell International Vs. Dcit, India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-10(1), 1120-21, 11Th Floor, Tower-A, Delhi Dlf Tower, Jasola District Centre, New Friends Colony, South-East Delhi, New Delhi Pan: Aabca7954K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. S.K. Aggarwal, Ca Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2025 Order

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 253(1)(a)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

Audit Report on income tax e filing portal. 2 | P a g e Disallowance of labour Welfare Fund of INR 8,930 under section 36(1) (va) of the Act Poupe Ald 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... terms, as per law. 4. Learned counsel next submits that the assessee had suo motu disallowed the latter sum of Rs.8,930/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act, and, it amounts to a double disallowance/addition therefore. 5. Faced with this situation, we direct the learned Assessing Officer

Santhi Foundries Pvt Ltd, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Corporate Ward 2, Coimbatore

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

ITA 80/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 36(1)(va)

orrer anitetta after, a saris, dag! IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI MAA. cet, ate wae ud