“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)

Tdi Infrastructure Limited, Delhi vs. ADIT CPC, Bengaluru

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3713/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 Tdi Infrastructure Vs. Adit Limited D-92 Ground Floor Cpc Bengaluru Lajpat Nagar -1Delhi Pan No.Aaaci5799P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Tarandeep Singh Ca Respondent By Sh. Amit Katoch Sr Dr Date Of Hearing: 25/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/08/2024

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B(6)

liability under law – in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part of the employers’ income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed ... virtue of Section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character

Tdi Infratech Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-27, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3712/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Tdi Infratech Limited 10 Vs. Acit Shaheed Bhagat Singh Central Circle -27 Marg, New Delhi-110001 Delhi Pan No.Aabct3582A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Tarandeep Singh Ca Respondent By Sh. Amit Katoch Sr Dr Date Of Hearing: 25/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/08/2024

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B(6)

M/S. Oriental Electrical Components Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 13(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 567/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhoriental Electrical Components Pvt. Ltd., 75Ab, Government Industrial Estate, Ganesh Nagar, Charkop, Kandivali West Mumbai-400 067 Pan: Aaaco7101M ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit-13(1) (2) Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Umang Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt, Ld. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)

Assessee processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Act on 23.12.2021, wherein a sum of Rs. 54,97,424/- was disallowed under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 224 of the Act resulting in a demand of Rs 2,18,50,080/- including interest under section 234A and 234B

Som Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhopal

Appeals are partly allowed for

ITA 270/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 263Section 37(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

Som Distilleries Private Limited, Bhopal vs. DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

Appeals are partly allowed for

ITA 269/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 263Section 37(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

Adani Hazira Port Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Adani Hazira Port Private Ltd.), Ahmedabad vs. The AO, CPC, Banglore Present Juridiction the DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 25/AHD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

Adani Petronet( Dahej) Port Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The AO, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 343/AHD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

Raja Udyog (P) Ltd., 24-Parganas (N) vs. ACIT, CC-4(3), Kol, Kolkata

In the result, I.T.(SS)A. No

ITA 944/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.944/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2017-18 Raja Udyog (P) Ltd…..…………….....……………………....………....Appellant Sukchar Girja, 16F, Barrackpore Trunk Road, 24 Parganas (N), W.B – 700115. [Pan: Aaccr0764P] Vs. Acit, Cc-4(3), Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent I.T.(Ss)A. No.43/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Raja Udyog (P) Ltd…..…………….....……………………....………....Appellant Sukchar Girja, 16F, Barrackpore Trunk Road, 24 Parganas (N), W.B – 700115. [Pan: Aaccr0764P] Vs. Acit, Cc-4(3), Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent I.T.(Ss)A. No.44/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Raja Udyog (P) Ltd…..…………….....……………………....………....Appellant Sukchar Girja, 16F, Barrackpore Trunk Road, 24 Parganas (N), W.B – 700115. [Pan: Aaccr0764P] Vs. Acit, Cc-4(3), Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rakesh Kr. Das, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 29, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 30, 2024

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(7)Section 43B

will accordingly assess the income of the assessee by disallowing only the amount, which is liable for disallowance under the relevant provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The assessee will be given benefit of excess amount, if any, disallowed inadvertently. 6. Ground No.2 - Vide Ground No.2

Signet Industries Ltd., Maharashtra vs. NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 525/IND/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jul 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2013-14 Signet Industries Limited, Nfac, Delhi / Gala No. 02 & 03, Acit, Central-1, Indore Buiding No. A-2, Ground Floor, Print World Industrial बनाम/ Complex, Vs. Village Vehele Bhindwadi, Shastri Nagar, Thane (Maharastra) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aabcs3489F Assessee By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan, C.A. & Ruchira Singhal, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2024

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

M/S Guruji Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director Income Tax. CPC Circle-1, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4283/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Guruji Infrastructure Adit, Cpc, Bangalore Private Limited 560500

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti KalyanikarFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan, Sr. DR

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT

Magic Software Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 16(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 654/DEL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year 2022-23

For Respondent: Shri Jatender Kumar Kale, CIT-DR

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

Grounds of Appeal, the salutary ground raised by the assessee concerns disallowance of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund on the contours of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act r.w. Section 2(24)(x) of the Act. 3. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel ... thus submitted that the assessee was prevented from making online payment within stipulated time due to website glitches and therefore, the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) is not justified in the peculiar circumstances owing to doctrine of impossibility. 3.1 It was contended that the assessee cannot accepted

Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-14(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 169/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. DR

Section 145(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

considering the due dates under the relevant provisions of the Act. The Assessing Officer ruled that by virtue of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act, such sums received by the appellants constituted "income". It was held that those amounts could not have

Ultimate International Private Limited, Delhi vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangaluru, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2780/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

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

1) of the Act have been fulfilled as there is no mistake apparent from record nor the Tax Audit indicated any disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law, Hon'ble NFAC/Ld. AO has erred ... considering the due dates under the relevant provisions of the Act. The Assessing Officer ruled that by virtue of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act, such sums received by the appellants constituted "income". It was held that those amounts could not have

Shri Vishwamitra Shikshan Samiti, Indore vs. ITO 5(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 39/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Vishwamitra Income-Tax Officer, Shikshan Samiti, 5(1), 104, J. B. Complex, Indore. बनाम/ Race Course Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aajts1473J Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N. D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2024

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

ITO, Cw-1(1), Chennai vs. Inspirisys Solutions Ltd, Kilpauk

The appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 9/CHNY/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.9,10 & 11/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-2016) & C.O.Nos.5, 6 &7/Chny/2023 (In Ita Nos.9,10 & 11/Chny/2022) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Inspirisys Solutions Limited, Corporate Ward 1(1) First Floor, New Door Nos. 57,59,63 & 64, Chennai 600 034. Dowlath Towers, Taylors Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. [Pan: Aaaca 5622M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/ Cross Objector) Department By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri. N.V. Balaji, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri. N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 14ASection 253

raised before or at the time of hearing’’ For AY 2014-15:- 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the allowability of deduction of employee's contribution ... raised before or at the time of hearing’’. For AY 2015-16:- ‘’1. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the allowability of deduction of employee's contribution

ITO, Cw-1(1), Chennai vs. Inspirisys Solutions Ltd, Chennai

The appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 11/CHNY/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 14ASection 253

ITO, Cw-1(1), Chennai vs. Inspirisys Solutions Limited, Chennai

The appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 10/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 14ASection 253

Goodyear India Ltd., Faridabad vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 346/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Verma CIT (DR ) and Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 92B

amounting to Rs. 19,452/-. The Assessing Officer has disallowed a sum of Rs. 19,452/- relying on the Explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(va) of the Act on the ground that the assessee has deposited Employees Contribution Funds ESI funds beyond the time period stipulated in the relevant

Goodyear India Ltd, Faridabad vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1451/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Verma CIT (DR ) and Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 92B

Diamour Jewels Private Limited, Andheri East, Mumbai vs. CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1965/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Ms. Krupali Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

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

employees’ contribution towards EPF and ESI is not deposited within the due dates under the relevant Act as mandated by the explanation in Section 36(1)(va), the same will not be allowable as a deduction. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, ld. Counsel ... Court while deciding the instant issue was in the context of due dates prescribed under the relevant Act for claiming deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 7.4. The contention raised before us is that since the penal damages have been waived off by the EPF Organisation itself