“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)

Bird Execujet Airport Services Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 4(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1017/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 38

expenditure made by the Assessing Officer representing delay in remittance of Employee’s Contribution towards ESIC and Provident Fund invoking provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). 4. At the time of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee submitted as under ... 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

Bird Worldwide Flight Service Mumbai Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 4(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1010/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 38

Bird Worldwide Flight Service Mumbai Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 4(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1009/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 38

Den Network Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi

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

ITA 2486/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: the due date of payment i.e. 15.07.2019. The CPC disallowed payment under PPF on the ground that payment is not made on or before the due date as specified under the respective Act. In the Tax Audit Report, the Auditor inadvertently mentioned the date of payment as 10th July 2020 instead of 10th July 2019. The Auditors vide Revised Tax Audit Report (at pages 203 to 216 of the paper book) have rectified mistake manually. A copy of Provident Fund challan dated 10.07.2019 as at page 222 to 225

For Appellant: S/Shri Kunal Verma & OmprakashFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िद"ी "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Orient Fashion Exports (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-19(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2240/DEL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshorient Fashion Exports Vs. Addl/ Jcit(A), (India) Pvt. Ltd, Udaipur E-45/14, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-Ii, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaco4581F Assessee By : Ms. Gargi Sethi, Adv Revenue By: Shri Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Ms. Gargi Sethi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 30(1)(va)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

permissible time. 2. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the disallowance made under section 2(24)(x) r/w Section 36(1)(va) is outside the scope of section 143(1)(8)(0) of the Act and as such the order dated 16.03.2023 passed ... record. 6. The salutary issue involves disallowance of the employees' contribution to PF relatable to wages for May, 2021 on the contours of Section 36(1) (va) r.w. Section 2(24)(x) of the Act owing to one day delay in deposit of Employees' Contribution. As amply demonstrated on behalf

Amjay Medimax India Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the levy of costs as specified above

ITA 731/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.731/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Amjay Medimax India The Dy.Cit बनाम/ Pvt.Ltd. Circle-1(1)(1) V/S. 4Th Floor, Medi Max House Ahmedabad - 380 015 Opp.Karnavati Hospital Ellisbridge Ahmedabad – 380 006 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabca 8241 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aseem Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23/02/2024, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) Arose Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Amjay Medimax India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ “बी“, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ B ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD "ी िस"ाथ" नौिटयाल, "ाियक

Goldman Sachs (India) Securiteis Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Add/Jt/Dy/Asst/CIT/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

ITA 763/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 253(1)Section 92C

assessee on this issue. In conformity, the AO vide impugned final assessment order made an addition of INR 41,48,164 under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. It is the plea of the assessee that due to a technical glitch the payment of employees' contribution to Provident Fund ... payment towards employees' contribution to Provident Fund after the due date prescribed under the relevant statute is not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra, we find no merits in assessee

Shilpa Steel and Powers Ltd, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Nagpur

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

ITA 317/NAG/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234CSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

making addition of Rs.26,49,200/- on account of employees contribution to PF/ESIC Fund paid after the due date by invoking provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) and the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO. On the facts and circumstances ... account of appellant’s failure to pay the employee’s contribution to Provident Fund/ ESIC within the prescribed due dates as per section 36(1)(va) is outside the purview and scope of adjustments as envisaged u/s 143(1)(a)(iv). The action of the learned authorities is illegal

Ramani Cars Private Ltd, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Orporate Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed statistical

ITA 604/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

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

ITA No.604/Chny/2024 :- 2 -: 2.0 The assessee has raised altogether 4 grounds of appeal contesting, inter-alia, addition of Rs.62,85

Bholeshwar Chopra, Delhi vs. Ward 68(5), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 2340/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2340 & 2336/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 बनाम Bholeshwar Chopra Ito Ec 336, Maya Enclave, Vs. Ward 68(5), G 8 Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Adupc7256R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

assessing officer (AO) at the Central Processing Center (CPC) to disallow the Employee contribution of Rs. 6,97,282/- under Section 36(1)(va) pertaining to PF/ES1, 1 I.T.A. Nos. 2340 & 2336/Del/2024 despite the timely deposit made by the Assessee before the due date as per legal precedents made ... Section 1 - 3(1)(a)(iv) of the Income Tax Act 1961, especially regarding the addition of Rs. 6,97,282/- under Section 36(1)(va) concerning PF/ESL This adjustment is deemed to lack legal basis, as the contributions towards ESI and EPF were made in a timely manner

Bholeshwar Chopra, Delhi vs. Ward 68(5), Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 2336/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

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

DCIT Circle 27(1), New Delhi vs. United Drilling Tools Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5913/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

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

1 DCIT Vs. United Drilling Tools Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE BEFORE

M/S. Bakshi Security & Personnel Services P Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 12(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4266/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Haresh P. Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr. D/R

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

account of the alleged late payment of the Employees' and Employer's Contribution to Provident Fund & ESIC under the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act without realizing that the Explanation - 1 & 2 under the said section were not part of the statute at the time of passing ... amount for the year as above including entire Employer's Contribution for the year of Rs.4,50,29,322/- under the provisions of section 36(1)(va) read with the Explanation 1 & 2 thereunder as the Appellant did not find any reference and/or any discussion on the said provisions alongwith

Gp Spira Duct Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 957/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.957/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Gp Spira Duct Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Limited Of Income Tax Hyderabad Circle-2(1) [Pan : Aaccg2696M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A.V.Raghuram, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 04/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)] Dated 06.08.2024 & Pertains To A.Y.2020-21. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Company Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y.2020-21 On 22.12.2020, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.1,69,65,640/-. The Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee Has Been Processed By The 2 Ao(Cpc), Issued Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) & Determined Total Income At Rs.1,85,36,790/-, By Disallowing Bonus Expenditure Of Rs.13,87,250/- & Addition Towards Esi & Pf At Rs.1,83,903/-.

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao

Mehra Metal Components Private Limited, Nehru Place vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 16(1), C.R. Building

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 2547/DEL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2022-23 Mehra Metal Components Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., Circle-16(1), 201, Harsh Bhawan, 64-65 New Delhi Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan: Aaacm8494M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Ankur Agarwal, Ca Department By Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. Dr

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

alleged delayed payment of Employees Contribution to Provident Fund/Employees State Insurance by invoking the provisions of section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. That the order dated 27.03.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Ld. Addl/Joint Commissioner