“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)

Subodh Kumar Choudhary, Delhi vs. ADIT CPC, Delhi

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

ITA 3293/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

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

Gangol Sahkari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Ltd., Meerut vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Meerut

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3837/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Anubhav Sharmaita Nos.3836 & 3837/Del/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2019-20 Gangol Sahkari Dugdh Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2), Utpadak Sangh Ltd., Meerut. 282-Boundary Road, Civil Line, Meerut (Up) Pin:250001 Pan : Aaaag0147K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

Gangol Sahkari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Ltd., Meerut vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Meerut

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3836/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

ITO, Ward 62(1), New Delhi vs. Shyam Pal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed as above

ITA 1813/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 253(2)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue of delayed payment of employees’ contributions beyond the stipulated time period prescribed under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (In short, the ‘Act’) and expenditure disallowable under section ... 1) of the Act by the Assessing Officer–CPC by disallowing the employees’ contribution to Provident Fund & ESI of Rs.50,93,755/- under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act as the same was deposited after the stipulated time period. Aggrieved, the respondent/assessee filed an application under section

DCIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi vs. Delhi Financial Corporation, New Delhi

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

ITA 1616/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri G.K. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Doi, Sr. DR

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

mentioned. From the tax audit report it is clear that there were no delays in deposit of such Provident Fund and provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act has been fully complied with. 11. It was also submitted that the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ... audit report that there were no delays in deposit of such PF and the assessee is in complete compliance with the provisions of section 36(1)(va)of the Act. We find force in the submission of the ld. AR for the assessee that the judgement

Secunderabad Hotels Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 313/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.313/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Secunderabad Hotels (P) Vs. Income Tax Officer Limited Ward 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaics6896B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Joshi, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Joshi, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 139Section 36(1)(va)Section 436

further been upheld by the Horible ITAT, Hyderabad that the amendment to section 436 as well as section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) by the Finance Act, 2021 are prospective and not retrospective in nature. As the Assessee has admittedly paid the employee contribution to PE &ESI before ... grace period. Subject to above discussion and in view of the CBDT circular No. 22/2015, in the light of the interpretation of section 36(1)(va) made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.(Supra) and the decision of various ITAT regarding applicability

Neerus Ensembles Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 163/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.162 & 163/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2017-18) Neerus Ensembles Pvt. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Circle 16(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaccn1554D (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/06/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M These Two Appeals Filed By Neerus Ensembles Pvt. Ltd. (“Assessee”) Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Both Dated 22/12/2023 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Relating To A.Y.2017-18. Page 1 Of 10

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 201(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

erred in not fairly appreciating the fact that the Ld. AO erred in making the additions without considering the provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act, that expenditure is allowable if paid before the due date of filing return of income

Neerus Ensembles Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 162/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 201(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

Oakton Global Technology Services Centre (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-16(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 309/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.309/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Oakton Global Technology Vs. Income Tax Officer Services Centre (India) (P) Ltd, Ward 16(3) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaaco8824H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravi Bhardwaj, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bhardwaj, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144(5)

ITA No 309 of 2017 Oakton Global Technology Services Centre India P Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ

C S Manjunath, Tumakuru vs. Income-Tax Officer, War-1 & Tps, Tumkur

ITA 171/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 139Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Clause 20(b) of tax audit report [i.e., Details of contributions received from employees for various funds as referred to in section 36(1)(va)] is not correct. Instead of mentioning only the employees contribution part, audit report has mentioned the total contribution amount (i.e, both employer and employees contribution

Anoop Singh, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Faridabad

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

ITA 3733/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumaranoop Singh, Vs. Ito, 2097, Parvatia Colony, Ward-1(1), Faridabad, Haryana Faridabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bmaps2771R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Tiwari, Sr. DR

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

expenditure under the general clause of Section 37(1) of the Act would not extend to expenditure specially covered within the ambit of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Pvt. Ltd. (supra) itself explains this position in Para

The DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. John Energy Ltd., Mehsana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 911/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

assessee’s appeal is allowed. 16. As regards ground no.3.1 related to disallowance of employees’ contribution to PF under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, the same is decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services (P.) Limited vs. CIT-1 (2022) 143 taxmann.com

M/S. John Energy Ltd., Mehsana vs. The ACIT., Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 711/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Chededeepu Srinivas, Hyderabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-14(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 209/HYD/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jun 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Reddy, AR appeared for Shri Santi Pavan Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 139(1)Section 234BSection 36Section 37

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

Ashok Kumar Mago, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7, Pune

ITA 501/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SATBEER

Ashok Kumar Mago, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7, Pune

ITA 500/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SATBEER

Ramzanali Asgar Khan, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 807/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Nayaz Pasha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

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

va), is beyond the jurisdiction u/s 143(1) 1.1 The A.O., C.P.C., Bengaluru has no jurisdiction to make the addition on account of Section 36(1)(va) as the same cannot be given effect by way of intimation u/s 143(1). Reliance is placed on following decisions, (all of which ... ITAT-2022(Delhi)-O] h) Garg Head Centre & Nursing Home P Ltd vs ACIT, ITA No. 1700/DeV2022 1.2 Invalid invocation of Section 36(1)(va) : The AO, has invoked section 36(1)(va) which is illegal. If at all any addition to income should have been made it should have

Ramzanali Asgar Khan, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 806/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Nayaz Pasha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

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

Stellar Refractories Private Limited, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nagpur

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

ITA 420/NAG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

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

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

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234CSection 36(1)(va)

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 ... Refractories Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.420/Nag./2022 (i) PCIT Vs. Pepsico India Holding (P.) Ltd [2023] (156 taxmann.com 25 Delhi) dated 5-9-2023 Section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Employee's contribution (General) - Whether where deposit of employee's contribution towards provident fund

Lucida Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 4(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 848/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Kirat Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 38

ITA No.848/Bang/2024 Lucida Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI