“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)

Indo Rama Synthetics (India) Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, 10.1, New Delhi

In the result, impugned order is modified and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1959/DEL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.1959/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2022-23) Indo Rama Synthetics (India) Ltd., 53-54, Delhi Press Building, Ph-Iv, Udyog Vihar, Haryana 122015 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaaci-1530-L बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle 10(1), C R Building, Delhi 110001 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate, Ms. Somya Jain & Shri Shivam Gupta, Chartered Accountants "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/01/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 15/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Guwahati (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 26.02.2024, For Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Shri Rohit Jain, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That The Assessee Had Filed Its Return For Ay 2022-23 On 23.10.2022. During The Period Relevant To Assessment Year Under Appeal, The Assessee Had Income Of Rs.195.67 Lakhs

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)

Fund Department. It is trite that an assessee cannot be asked to do what is impossible for him to do. The provisions of Section 36(1)(va) thus requires to be read down appropriately in tune with doctrine of impossibility.” 7. The Division Bench of Tribunal in the case

Lall Construction Company, New Delhi vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru, Karnataka

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 4206/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4206/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 बनाम Lall Construction Company, Acit, Plot No.28, Third Floor, Vs. Centralized Processing Centre, 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha Karuna Kunj, Sector-3, Dwarka, New Delhi. No.48/1, 48/2, Beratenaagrahara Begur, Hosur Road, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru, Karnataka. Pan No. Aacfl0648M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37

erred on facts and in law, in making the disallowance on account of late deposit of ESI and PF under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act amounting to Rs. 7,72,180/- during the relevant Assessment Year. The NFAC vide its order dated 18.07.2024 too has grossly erred

ACIT, Circle- 11(2), New Delhi vs. Himalaya International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1024/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Sweety Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR

Section 263Section 35A

ITA No.7844/DEL/2017 [A.Y. 2013-14] ITA No.1024/DEL/2018 [A.Y. 2014-15] The A.C.I.T Vs.Himalaya International Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

ACIT, Circle- 11(2), New Delhi vs. Himalaya International Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 7844/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 263Section 35A

ITA No.7844/DEL/2017 [A.Y. 2013-14] ITA No.1024/DEL/2018 [A.Y. 2014-15] The A.C.I.T Vs. Himalaya International Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX

Staunch Business Solutions, Mohali vs. ITO Ward 6 (1), Chandigarh (ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru, Chandigarh

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 721/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vineet Krishan (Adv.) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON

Sanjeeta Chatterjee, Dubai vs. DCIT Intl. Taxation, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2241/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2021-22 Vikas Joshi Vs. Ito5(2)(5) Noida B-156, New Ashok Nagar Delhi -110096 Pan No. Acppj6246C (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

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

Kaveri Cotex Pvt Ltd, Jamnagar vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Jamnagar, Jamngar

ITA 338/RJT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.338/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S. Kaveri Cotex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Acit, Circle-3, Jamnagar At. Moti Banugar, Nr. Rampar Aaykar Bhawan, P N Marg, Crossing, Opp. Sarvoday Hotel, Manek Chowk, Jamnagar- Jamnagar Highway, 361006 Jamnagar-361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacck8772G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld .Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09 / 01 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/ 04 /2025

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld .Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

ITA NO. 338-RJT-2023 Kaveri Cotex Pvt Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR

Mr Nilesh V. Mehta, Mumbai vs. AO, CPC, Mumbai

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

ITA 1674/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 254(1)Section 254(2)Section 36(1)(va)

1)(va).” 4. The solitary grievance of the assessee is against the disallowance of payment towards employees' contribution to the Provident Fund under section 36(1)(va) of the Act without considering the revised Tax Audit Report filed by the assessee. 5. The brief facts of the case are that ... date of payment of employees' contribution to Provident Fund is considered, the disallowance to the extent of ₹ 7,65,951 made under section 36(1)(va) of the Act shall be deleted. The learned AR further submitted that the revised Tax Audit Report was also filed by the assessee before

U.P. Rajya Nirman Sahkari Sangh Limited, Lucknow vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Lucknow

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

ITA 120/LKW/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow03 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2013-14 Up Rajya Nirman Sahkari V. Dcit Range-2 Sangh Ltd Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh B-4/5, Gomti Nagar, Vistar, 226001. Lucknow-226010. Pan:Aaaau2337D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 20 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 03 04 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl

Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

Shelter Infra Projects Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 10(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 737/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “सी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार

M/S. R R Kapoor Company, Ahmednagar vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 2645/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs.60,480/- which was made by the AO by invoking provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act i.e. on account of delay in payment of Employees Contribution to Provident Fund”. 4. The assessee failed to succeed ... there is delay in payment of Employees Contribution to Provident Fund and the case of the assessee is hit by Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. Accordingly, Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 5. Ground No.2 raised by the assessee reads as under

Rajaram Tatoba Tambave, Kolhapur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Kolhapur

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

ITA 1837/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1837/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Rajaram Tatoba Vs Dcit, Circle-1, Tambave, Kolhapur Jayhind Park, Opp Shivaji School, Kasaba Bavada Karveer, Kolhapur-416006 Maharashtra Pan-Adspt1310K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri A.D. Kulkarni

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

adjustment could arise only as increase in income at the time of receipt of employees contribution as per Section 2(24) (x) and Section 36(1) (va) is applicable allowing deduction only upon payment within statutory period. 5. The Id CIT(A) failed to appreciate that Sub-clause

TDS Placements and Services Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT Circle 3(1), Chandigarh

In the result, these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 556/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CA, &For Respondent: Sh. Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

plea of latest amendment made by way of insertion of explanation w.e.f. ITA Nos. 208/CHD/2021 & Ors. A.Ys. 2018-19 & Ors. 3 01.04.2021 to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2021. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned ... assessee (beyond the due date prescribed in the EPF/ESI Statute) but was deposited well before the due date of ITR. The section 36(1) (va) abruptly disallow the delay deposit in contradiction of section 438. The disallowance is not even allowed in the next assessment year also if deposited beyond

TDS Placements and Services Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle 3(1), Chandigarh

In the result, these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 537/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CA, &For Respondent: Sh. Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

TDS Management Consultants P.Ltd, Mohali vs. DCIT-Circle-6(1), Chandigarh

In the result, these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 208/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CA, &For Respondent: Sh. Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S Giriraj Enterprises, Pune vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1497/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

could have been treated only as receipts not amounting to income. When Parliament introduced the amendments in 1988-89, inserting Section 36(1)(va) and simultaneously inserting the second proviso of Section 43B, its intention was not to treat the disparate nature of the amounts, similarly. As discussed previously ... prescribed time by way of contribution of the employees' share to their credit with the relevant fund is to be treated as deduction (Section 36(1) (va)). The other important feature is that this distinction between the employers' contribution (Section 36(1)(iv)) and employees' contribution required to be deposited

M/S Sargam Retails Private Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1496/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

could have been 3 treated only as receipts not amounting to income. When Parliament introduced the amendments in 1988-89, inserting Section 36(1)(va) and simultaneously inserting the second proviso of Section 43B, its intention was not to treat the disparate nature of the amounts, similarly. As discussed previously ... prescribed time by way of contribution of the employees' share to their credit with the relevant fund is to be treated as deduction (Section 36(1) (va)). The other important feature is that this distinction between the employers' contribution (Section 36(1)(iv)) and employees' contribution required to be deposited

Apidor Abrasive Products Pvt Ltd, Nashik vs. Assessing Officer, Nashik

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

ITA 467/PUN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shilpa N. C

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

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

Kachan Metals Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Dy. CIT, Circle- 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2350/KOL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Kachan Metals Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Circle-8(1) 19G, 19Th Floor, Everest House, P-7, Chowringhee Square, 46C, J.L. Nehru Road, Kolkata-700069 Vs. Kolkata-700071 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabck3407F Assessee By : Shri Anil Kochar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, DR

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM Kachan

A K Enterprises, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 181/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh N. Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY