“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)

Bmw Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Kolkata

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2586/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan &For Respondent: Shri Ms. Archana Gupta, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

Bmw Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Kolkata

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2585/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan &For Respondent: Shri Ms. Archana Gupta, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

Capgemini Technology Services India Limited (Successor to Liquidhub India Private Limited), Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2753/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2753/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Capgemini Technology V Assessment Unit, Services India S Income Tax Limited(Successor To Liquid Department. Hub India Private Limited), Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase Iii, Midc Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune – 411057. Pan: Aaacl8943J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sudin Sabnis & Shri Siddhesh Khandalkar Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand-Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 05/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2020-21 Dated 02.09.2025 Emanating From The Penalty Order Passed Under Section

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 155Section 155(18)Section 18Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(6)(a)Section 40

concerned 3. Less: Tax impact on account of other 32,27,62,439 retrospective amendments [e.g section 40(a)(ii) and section 36(1)(va) of Capgemini (other than sr. no. 2) 5 4. Balance MAT Credit brought forward 5,67,32,85,499 ITA No.2753/PUN/2025 [A] 2.2 Ld.AR ... concerned 3. Less: Tax impact on account of other 32,27,62,439 retrospective amendments [e.g section 40(a)(ii) and section 36(1)(va) of Capgemini (other than sr. no. 2) 4. Balance MAT Credit brought 5,67,32,85,499 forward 5.3 These facts have not been disputed

Sheth Realtors, Mumbai vs. ACIT-CC-7(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5947/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Arun Khodpiashri Sandeep Singh Karhailsheth Realtors Vasant Oasis, Site Office, Upper Basement, Cts No.345A 1 To 3, 345A 5 To 6, Makwana Road, Marol, Andheri (East), ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400059 Pan: Aavfa3975F

For Appellant: Dr. K ShivramFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL

Imperial Life Science Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner, Delhi

ITA 5320/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that both the learned lower authorities herein have invoked section 36(1)(va) ESI/PF disallowance amounting to Rs.20,43,335/- for AY 2019-20 and Rs.19

Imperial Life Science Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner, Delhi

ITA 5319/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

Sis Limited, Patna vs. ACIT, Delhi

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

ITA 341/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

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

sustaining the addition of Rs.5,60,01,339/- without recording any justifiable dissatisfaction with the appellant's explanations for claim of deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred ... claiming deduction is deposit within the due date, the incorrect reporting ESI/PF Portal per-se cannot be a ground of disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred, both on facts

Smt. Raj Bala, Chandigarh vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 1142/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, CIT DR

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

employees’ share of PF/ESI contributions had been deposited after the statutory due dates prescribed under the respective Acts. Applying the provisions of section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x), the CPC held that belated deposits of employees’ contributions could not be allowed as deduction. It was further ... contributions were deposited after the prescribed due dates. The CIT(A) placed reliance on the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 to sections 36(1)(va) and 43B, clarifying that the benefit of section 43B is not available in respect of employees’ contributions. The CIT(A) further held that

Om Sons Marketing Private Limited, Faridkot vs. DCIT, Centre Circle-2, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

ITA 49/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.48/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Village Mansoorwal Central Circle-2 Tehsil Zira Head Office Ludhiana Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.463/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Central Circle-2 Village Mansoorwal Ludhiana Tehsil Zira Head Office Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.49/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Om Sons Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Quila Chowk, Old Cantt Road, Centre Circle-2 Vs. Faridkot, Punjab-151203 Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-8962-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251(2)Section 69C

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT

Malbros International Pvt Ltd, Village Mansoorwal, Tehsil Zira Head Office, Old Cantt Road, Faridkot vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

ITA 48/CHANDI/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2022-2023

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251(2)Section 69C

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Malbros International Pvt Ltd, Tehsil Zira, Faridkot -151203, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

ITA 463/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251(2)Section 69C

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Om Sons Marketing Private Limited, Quila Chowk

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

ITA 193/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251(2)Section 69C

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT

The India Cements Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2663/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2663/Chny/2025 धििाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80I

other fund for the The India Cements Ltd. :- 15 -: welfare of such employees" as per section 2(24)(x) of the Act. Section 36(1)(va) provides that any sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of section 2(24)(x) apply

Haribhakti & Co LLP, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 1610/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Alpesh DharodFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)

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

1)of the Act, date of order 28/12/2022. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee claimed deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of employees' contribution to Provident Fund (PF). The assessee deposited the said employees' contribution with a delay. During ... processing of the return, the Ld. AO rejected the assessee's claim for deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and made an addition amounting to Rs.15,72,131/-. Aggrieved by the said adjustment, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee contended that

Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Sangli. vs. Shree Ganesh Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Ashta

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

ITA 2375/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2375/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-5, Sangli. Vs. Shree Ganesh Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Ashta, Tal. Walwa, Dist. Sangli, Sangli- 416301. Pan : Aaaas8248R Appellant Respondent C. O. No.49/Pun/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2375/Pun/2025) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shree Ganesh Nagari Vs. Ito, Ward-5, Sangli. Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Ashta, Tal. Walwa, Dist. Sangli, Sangli- 416301. Pan : Aaaas8248R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Assessee By : Shri Sarang Gudhate Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

before the due date whereas the appellant has not paid the employees contribution on or before the due date. As per section 36(1)(va) of the Act, if the employees contribution is not paid to the government account on or before the due date, the same is not allowable ... erred in not allowing deduction u/s 80P of Rs. 58,631/- being employees' contribution towards Provident Fund by invoking the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the alleged ground that the said contribution was not deposited on or before 5 C.O. No.49/PUN/2025

Iyogi Technical Services Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 323/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 194(2)Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘I’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Iyogi Technical Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2064/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 194(2)Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘I’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

M/S. Sahajanand Laser Technology Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 16/AHD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 15 & 16/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14)

For Appellant: Ms. Arti N Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, CIT. DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT

M/S. Sahajanand Laser Technology Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 15/AHD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 15 & 16/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14)

For Appellant: Ms. Arti N Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, CIT. DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT

Rational Business Corporation Pvt Ltd, Sonipat vs. DCIT, Circle-19(1), Delhi

Appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 4403/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4402 & 4403/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 बनाम Rational Business Corporation Dcit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle 19(1), C.R. Building, Bahalgarh Chowk, Delhi, Sonepat Road, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Bahalgarh (73), Sonipat. Pan No.Aadcr1837J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

36(1)(va) of the Act. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that employee contributions to PF and ESI are governed exclusively by Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, and not by Section 43B of the Act. The court emphasized that employee contributions must be deposited within ... employer and employee contributions. While an employer’s contributions could be governed by section 43B of the Act, employees’ contributions are strictly under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. This ruling overturned many High Court decisions that allowed deductions for delayed employee contributions under Section