“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)

Goribi Abdul Karim Nadaf, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl JCIT (A) 1 - Ahmedabad, Addl/JCIT (A) Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 516/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi

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

taxability of such income in the hands of the assessee. Once such an amount becomes income of the employer-assessee, then section 36(1)(va) comes into play for providing the deduction. This provision provides that: `(va) any sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which ... deduction for the employees’ share for depositing the same in the relevant funds beyond the due date as given in Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va) on the strength of section 43B. The latter section opens with a non-obstante clause and provides that a deduction otherwise allowable

Stars Multipurpose Co-Operative Society Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 13/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं/Ita No. 13/Hyd/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Stars Multipurpose Vs. Deputy Commissioner Co-Operative Society Of Income Tax, Limited, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan No. Aakas6153R] अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत् यर्थी/Respondent नििााररती द्वारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ar राजस् व द्वारा/Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/04/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 30/04/2024 आदेश / Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23/11/2023 Passed By The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-4, Mumbai, (“Ld. First Appellate Authority”), Relating To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Co- Operative Society, Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29/10/2018 Admitting ‘Nil’ Income. The Cpc Bengaluru (“Cpc”) In The Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(“ The Act”), Dated 22/10/2019 Disallowed The Provident Fund Payment & Esi Fund Payment Of Rs. 14,56,847/- On The Reason That The Said Payments Are Not Allowable U/S. 36(1)(Va) Of The Act & Determined The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 14,56,847/- & Finally Raised A Demand Of Rs.5,59,053/-.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 72(2)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR

M/S.G.S. Atwal & Co.(Engg)(P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1009/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 36(1)(va)

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

M/S.G.S. Atwal & Co.(Engg) (P)Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1008/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 36(1)(va)

Narender Singh, Haryana vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Gurugram

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 136/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 36(1)(va)

Centre (CPC) noticed that employees’ contributions to PF and ESI were not paid within the due date as provided under Explanation -1 to section 36(1)(va) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). Accordingly, the deduction claimed was disallowed. Assessee contested the aforesaid disallowance before ... Income Tax, in ITA No. 3829/Del/2023 for AY: 2020-21, has held that the due date in terms of Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va) has to be reckoned from the actual date of disbursement of salary irrespective of the month to which such salary relates. The observations

Newgen Industrial Security (Gujarat) Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1)(2), Vadodara

ITA 394/AHD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2019-20

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

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

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

Newgen Industrial Security (Gujarat) Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1)(2), Vadodara

ITA 393/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

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

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

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

Vinit Pravin Shetty, Andheri East vs. Income Tax Officer, Bandra Kurla Complex

ITA 4125/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing The Return Of Income; Hence The Disallowance Made By The Ao Shall Be Deleted.” 3. We Have Heard Both The Sides & Perused The Material On Record.

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "F" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Narender Singh Narwal, Panipat vs. ITO Ward-1, Panipat

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3829/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Delhi24 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 36(1)(va)

paid within the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts, disallowed the deduction claimed on account of such payment invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) read with its Explanations. The assessee contested the aforesaid disallowance by filing an appeal ... considered rival submissions, we find, limited submission of the assessee is to the effect that the due date as per Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act should be construed with reference to the actual date of disbursement of 3 | P a g e salary

M/S. Humara India Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 33, Kolkata

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

ITA 135/KOL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Apr 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Humara India Credit Acit, Circle-33, Co-Operative Society Limited Kolkata 101, 227/2 Mangal Jyoti Vs Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata- 700020. Pan: Aaaah 8186 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Parveen Kumar Bansal, Ar Revenue By : Shri S. Datta, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.12.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeals, Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’].

For Appellant: Shri Parveen Kumar Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, DR

Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

added to the income of the assessee. In view of the provisions of section 2(24)(x) of the Act read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The ld. AO also noticed that the assessee has failed to deposit TDS relating to certain expenses made during the year

Pride Distributors Pvt. Ltd, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Nagpur

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 69/NAG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: For Revenue : Shri Abhay Y Marathe, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y Marathe, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH : NAGPUR [THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING AT PUNE] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Shashank Tiwari, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 29(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3098/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Saurav Rohtagi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

date prescribed under the PF and ESI Acts, the same cannot be allowed as deduction in view of the provisions contained under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that in such circumstances, the employees contribution to PF and ESI not deposited within

Mjunction Services Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as indicated above

ITA 203/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ashis Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Amitkumar S. Solanki, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Godhra

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

ITA 456/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 456/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18) Amitkumar S Solanki The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 63, Narayan Green Ward - 2, Godhra Vs. Banglows, Sama Savli Road, Vadodra - 390024 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bnips7919E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Palak Pavagadhi, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 23.11.2022 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Had Filed His Return Of Income For A.Y. 2017- 18 Declaring An Income Of Rs.49,44,188/-. The Return Was Processed U/S. 143(1) Of The Act On 20.03.2019 & While Processing The Return An Addition Of Rs.25,99,845/- Was Made In Respect Of Unpaid Employees’ Contribution To Epf/Esi U/S.

For Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR

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

reported figure as the details of contributions received from employees for various funds as referred in section 36(1)(va) of the Act was to be reported in column 20(b) of the tax audit report. According to the assesse the outstanding employees’ contribution of PF & ESI for March

Sai Service Private Limited, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-10, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1075/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1074 & 1075/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sai Service Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-10, Mumbai Pune Road, Vs Pune Phugewadi, Pune 411 012 Maharashtra Pan : Aabcs4998M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare– Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak- Dr Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) In The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Passed U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) On 04.09.2023 & 18.09.2023 Respectively For Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19. Since Some Grounds Of Appeal Are Common In All These Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. We Are Discussing A.Y.2017-18 Hereonwards.

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 80G

।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”बी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL

Sai Service Private Limited, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-10, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1074/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 80G

Satendra Shrivastav, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. ITO, Ward 5(3)(3), G B Nagar

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

ITA 533/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 234FSection 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.533/DEL/2023 (Assessment

Satendra Shrivastav, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. ITO, Ward 5(3)(3), G B Nagar

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

ITA 532/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 234FSection 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.533/DEL/2023 (Assessment

Kairali Exports, Kilimanoor vs. ACIT Circle 1(2), Trivandrum

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 130/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Anil Kumar Dugar, Jm

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR

Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

assessment order dated 26.12.2016 that a sum of Rs.17,49,196/- was added back to the returned income by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act on the ground that the assessee remitted the said amount beyond the due date prescribed. In appeal, the learned ... longer res integra that, if the employees contribution is remitted after the due date, the deduction as provided under section 36(1)(va) of the Act is not admissible. 8. In this regard, it is noteworthy to quote the relevant observation made in the judgment delivered in the case

M/S. Gsp Crop Science Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 892/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 250(6)Section 35

892/Ahd/2018 14 employees’s contribution to provident fund after the due date prescribed under the relevant statue is not allowable as deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Therefore, following the settled position of law on the issue, we dismiss the ground no.1 of the assessee’s appeal