“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)

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 180/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

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

R V Interior Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. PCIT, Delhi

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

ITA 452/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

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

Purpletalk India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 193/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA PVSS PrasadFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234ASection 37(1)Section 92C

assessee had also challenged additions made by the Assessing Officer towards disallowance of employees contribution towards PF & ESI in terms of section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. The assessee had also challenged addition towards disallowance of interest paid on delayed payment

Checkmate Facility and Electronis Solutions Private Limited, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 706/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Kaushani Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr. D.R

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

main issue in the appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals) was the disallowance of Rs. 36,72,752/- made by the CPC under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act for delayed payments of employee contributions towards PF and ESIC. Upon reviewing the facts, Ld. CIT(Appeals) noted that the disallowance ... based on discrepancies between the Tax Audit Report and the Income Tax Return, particularly regarding the due dates for contributions under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Ld. CIT(Appeals) noted that the assessee failed to deposit employee contributions to the PF/ESI within the due date

Checkmate Facility and Electronic Solutions Private Limited, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 473/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Kaushani Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr. D.R

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

Liquidhub Analytics Pvt. Ltd. (Now Merged With Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd), Pune vs. NFAC, Pune

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

ITA 1952/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Smt Nilu Jaggi, CIT

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

profits eligible for deduction under section 6 10AA of the Act on account of disallowance of INR 27,38,849 under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and withdrawal of deduction claimed towards Health & Education Cess amounting ... income u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act and consequently disallowing PF contribution received from employees of INR 53,92,992 under section 36(1)(va) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the due dates for deposit are due on gazetted holiday and Sunday and hence the subsequent

Talentpro India Hr Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2722/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2721 & 2722/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Talentpro India Hr Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 30, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Income Tax, Chennai 600 008. Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aabcp9823A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Sanjeev Aditya, C.A. (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R. Raghunathaboth The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different But Identical Orders Of The Addl/Jcit(A), Thiruvanantpuram Both Dated 28.08.2024 For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20. 2. Since Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear The Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Aditya, C.A. (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &

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

Supreme Court 4 I.T.A. Nos.2721 & 2722/Chny/24 has considered the issue of disallowance of belated remittances of employee’s contribution to PF & ESI under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act, and after considering relevant provisions and also by relying upon various judicial precedents held that ... order to get deduction under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act, timely payment of employee’s contribution to PF & ESI is necessary and in case, there is a delay in remittance of such contribution to respective funds, then, the assessee is not entitled for deduction and further

Talent Pro India Hr Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Circle 3(1), Corporate Chennai, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2721/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Aditya, C.A. (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &

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

Mayurply Industries Pvt Ltd., Hooghly, West Bengal vs. ACIT, Circle 3, Guwahati, Assam

In the result IT(SS)A Nos

ITA 224/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati24 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kaushik Roy, DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 253Section 253(5)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND

Uco Bank, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1800/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Mar 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri Sonu Kumar Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Chandan Das, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

issue, therefore, it needs to be held that the interpretation in regard to the employees' contribution to PF and its applicability to section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24(x) and section 43B, is applicable from the time the said provision was introduced. Once this principle is applied

C & S Electric Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, OSD Range-42, Delhi

ITA 4961/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

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

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B ”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms

Panichikandy Mohandasan, Kasargod vs. The DCIT, Kannur

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

ITA 48/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Panichikandy Mohandasan .......... Appellant Kanhangad, Hosdurg, Kasaragod 671315 [Pan: Advpm0383N] Vs. Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Kannur Appellant By: Shri Arun Raj S., Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JM Assessment

Airona Tiles Limited, Sabarkantha vs. The DCIT, Circle Himatnagar Presently the DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1127/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1127/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Airona Tiles Limited The Dcit बनाम/ Ceramic City Circle Himatnagar. V/S. At & Post : Dalpur Presently The Dcit, Kathwada Road Circle-2(1)(1) Sabarkantha – 383 120 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aanca 3712 D (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anil N. Shah & Aatish Shah Ars Revenue By : Shri Purshottam Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.10.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 21.12.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] By Dcit/Acit, Circle Himatnagar [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. Airona Tiles Ltd. Vs. The Dcit, Circle Himatnagar - Presently The Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1) Asst. Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Anil N. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Purshottam Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(3)Section 43BSection 68

without issuing a specific show cause notice regarding the proposed additions. The additions made by the AO included: - Rs.2,72,124/- under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF. - Rs.10,100/- under Section 43B of the Act on account

Aditya Shankar Choudhari, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Pune

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 333/PUN/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.333/Pun/2025 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Aditya Shankar Vs Ito Ward Choudhari, 10(1), Akurdi, House No. 125/2, Hill Pune Range, Phase 4, Deolali Camp-422401 Maharashtra Pan-Afopc0286M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 35(1)(va)Section 36(1)(V)Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण "एस एम सी" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "SMC" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr

Dharrit Shah, Pune vs. ACIT Cir-6 Pune, Pune

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

ITA 2260/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2260/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Vishal A. Makawane

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 41(1)Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL

Seema Sunil Bagul, Nashik vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Nashik.

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

ITA 1648/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT DR

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

reason of delay in payment of employer's contribution to Provident Fund and Employee State Insurance (ESI) Contribution when the provisions of section 36(1)(va) are not applicable to Employer's contribution to PF as well as ESIC. 2. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case

Seema Sunil Bagul, Nashik vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Nashik.

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

ITA 1647/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT DR

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

Seema Sunil Bagul, Nashik vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Nashik.

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

ITA 1646/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT DR

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

M/S Novel Sugar Ltd, Kanpur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 27/LKW/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Mar 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharym/S. Novel Sugar Ltd Dcit, Centralized V. 123/355, Fazalganj, Kanpur- Processing Centre, 208012. Bangaluru. Pan:Aaccb2480N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl

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

learned Assessing Officer as well as learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in making addition of Rs.5,29,103.00 under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition under section 36

Kantar Gdc India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle - 2(1), Hyderabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 804/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 156

आआआआ आआआआआआ आआआआआआ, आआआआआआआआ आआआ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO