← 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)

Tekni Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1855/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumarshri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Adjournment ApplicationFor Respondent: Shri V K Mangla, Sr. DR
Section 14(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

while filing the return of income for the late payment/deposit of PF/ESI has considered the disallowance under section 36(1)(iv) instead of section 36(1)(va) as per the intimation u/s. 143(1). It is also to be submitted that in the rectification application filed by the appellant company ... late deposit/payment of ESI/PF was by mistake while filing the return of income shown as disallowance u/s. 36(1) (iv) instead of section 36(1)(va) and it was not that the Asst.Year –2022-23 - 2– appellant company had not made any disallowance. It was only a technical and venial

Dinesh Jindal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi

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

ITA 74/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

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

solitary issue in both the appeals is with respect to disallowance of employees contribution towards PF & ESI being paid delayed in terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 8. Before us, the only contention of the assessee was that it had paid the employees contribution in accordance with

Mithalal Bhawarlal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO WD - 19(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 1131/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh & Ms. ShivaliFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(7)

AddI/JCIT(A), Panaji under section 250 of the Act dated 28 December 2024 is erroneous and bad in law. 3. Incorrect disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act for payment of employee's contribution to Provident Fund made within due date Without prejudice to Ground ... learned AddI/JCIT(A), Panaji has erred in confirming the disallowance of INR 58,34,905/- towards employee's contribution to Provident Fund under section 36(1)(va) of the Act for the month of March 2018 despite the fact that the said payment was made within the due date

Rajesh Choudhary, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Central Circle, Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 597/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

PCIT set aside the matter and restored to the file of the AO to verify the applicability of provisions of Section 69 and Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act by observing as under:- ‘’09. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case ... disturbing the assessment that has already been made. I am only passing an order whereas applicability of the provisions of section 69 and section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) for late payment of ESI are considered. The order of the AO is, therefore, liable to revision under

Shri Mukesh Rasiklal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-9, Now Circle-4(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 3218/AHD/2015[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Dec 2024AY 1993-94

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh R. Shah – Party in personFor Respondent: Shri Karun Kant Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153Section 250

does not pay back within the stipulated time, the said amount is treated as his income. The glaring example is the provision of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the l.T. Act, 1961. (v) In the instant case, the assessee held the amount of Rs.2

Shri Mukesh Rasiklal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-9, Now Circle-4(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 3217/AHD/2015[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Dec 2024AY 1992-93

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh R. Shah – Party in personFor Respondent: Shri Karun Kant Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153Section 250

does not pay back within the stipulated time, the said amount is treated as his income. The glaring example is the provision of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the l.T. Act, 1961. (v) In the instant case, the assessee held the amount of Rs.2

Tiriyogi Narayan Singh, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 29, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1863/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘A’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg

Tiriyogi Narayan Singh, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 29, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1862/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘A’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg

Gebbs Healthcare Solutions Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT (1)(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5528/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 10ASection 115JSection 139Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

communicated to the assessee proposing adjustment on account of (a) exempt income (b) deduction claimed u/s 10AA (c) Deduction claimed u/s 43B and section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 3. 08-03-2019 Assessee filed revised return of income u/s 139(5) of the Act in response to communication

Pfizer Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax- 14(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3173/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2022-23
For Respondent: Shri Pratik Poddar & Shri Shreyas
Section 143(1)Section 145(2)Section 234Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA

Major Rajesh Kumar, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-68(5), Delhi

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 992/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 43B

1 ITA nos. 109, 720, 721, 992/Del/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI

Balraj Sharma, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Gurgaon

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 721/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 43B

1 ITA nos. 109, 720, 721, 992/Del/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI

Bintu, Rewari vs. ITO, Ward-2, Rewari

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 109/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 43B

1 ITA nos. 109, 720, 721, 992/Del/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI

Pink City Jewel House Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur

ITA 598/JPR/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Ranka, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Saurav Harsh, Adv.&
Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144oSection 14ASection 263Section 69

ITA No. 598/JP/2024 Pinkcity Jewelhouse Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

Poonam Sabharwal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 28(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 88/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 36(1)Section 438Section 43B

considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The disallowance of employees’ contribution to PF/ESIC for breach of condition under Section 36(1)(va) is in controversy. 9.1 We notice at the outset that an opportunity was given via electronic platform of the deptt. For the proposed ... merit in such plea that the belated deposit of employees contributions to PF/ESIC governed under Section 36(1)(va) is also simultaneously amenable to deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. In terms of the provision, Section 37(1) permits deduction of expenditure which is not in the nature

Kiri Industries Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1513/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumarshri Tr Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 234ASection 270ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR.BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI TR SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Vishwa Industrial Company Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2288/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountantmember & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicialmember

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

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

Spectrum Talent Management Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, CPC Bangalore

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

ITA 3313/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3313/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 बनाम Spectrum Talent Management Dcit Private Limited, Vs. Cpc, Bangalore, B-46, Retreat Apartments, 20, Karnataka. 1.P. Extension, Delhi. Pan No. Aarcs4776M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 80ASection 80J

I.T.A. No. 3313/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL

Shridev Procon Ltd., (Earlier Known As Dev Procon Ltd), Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 300/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.300/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shridev Procon Limited Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ (Earlier Known As Dev Procon Income Tax, V/S. Limited) Central Circle – 2 (1) Dev House Ahmedabad B/H. Rajpat Club, S.G.Highway Ahmedabad – 380 052 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaccd 1788 P (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, Ar & Shri Gulab Thakor, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, AR &For Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 68

Travel Expenses – Rs.35,60,621/- • Disallowance of Prior Period Expenses – Rs.1,20,95,071/- • Addition under Section 68 – Rs.9,06,000/- • Disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) – Rs.1,03,440/- • Disallowance of Interest Expenses under Section 36(1)(iii) – Rs.27,73,725/- • Discrepancy in Form 26AS and P&L Account ... However, these contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act. Under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x), employees' contributions to PF/ESI must be deposited within the due dates prescribed under the relevant Acts

Wissen Technology Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT., Circle-17(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1082/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1082/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Wissen Technology Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Limited Of Income Tax Bangalore Circle-17(2) [Pan : Aabcw5249H] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Prabhakara Murthy, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 11/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.09.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], Siliguri, Relating To A.Y.2018-19 On The Following Grounds : 1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of Appellant’S Case, The Impugned Order Under Section 250 Of I.T.Act Passed By Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Siliguri, In Adjudicating The Appeal Filed Against Intimation U/S 143(1) Of I.T.Act Is Not Correct Both On The Facts & In The Law Applicable To The Facts Of The Appellant’S

For Appellant: Shri P.Prabhakara MurthyFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant