“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)

M/S. Rbk Education Solutions Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward -13 (3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1810/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Vikas Awasthym.A No.347/Mum/2023 [ Arising Out Of Ita No.1810/Mum/2022 (A.Y.2018-19)] Income Tax Officer13(3)(1) Mumbai. ...... "ाथ" /Applicant बनाम Vs. Rbk Education Solutions Private Limited. 215, Atrium, 10Th Floor, Opp.Divine School, Jb Nagar, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 059. Pan:Aaccc-5770-E ..... "ितवादी/Respondent आअसं.1810/मुं/2022 (िन.व. 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 254(2)Section 36(1)(va)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई पीठ “ई ”, मुंबई "ी बी.आर बा"करण, लेखाकार सद"य एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी, "याियक सद

Balaji Educational Society, Visakhapatnam vs. Assiciant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 37/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.37/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Balaji Educational Society Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.14-8, Simhachalam Road Income Tax Vepagunta Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaaab1795J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 43B

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम “SMC” पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM “SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्वूरु आर एल रेड्डी

Synergies Castings Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 95/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.95/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Synergies Castings Ltd Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aaics7410H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate A. Aruna राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 13/03/2024

For Appellant: Advocate A. ArunaFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

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

ITA No 95 of 2024 Synergies Castings Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

Synergies Castings Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 94/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.94/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Synergies Castings Ltd Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aaics7410H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate A. Aruna राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 13/03/2024

For Appellant: Advocate A. ArunaFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

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

ITA No 94 of 2024 Synergies Castings Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

Ayur Green Ayurveda Hospitals Private Limited, Malappuram vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 565/COCH/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Mar 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmiayurgreen Ayurveda Hospsitals Vs Dcit, Private Limited Cpc, Door No. 1/301 Ayurgreen Bengaluru. Ayurveda Hospitals, Kaladi Mlp Edappal, Malappuram-679585. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaica 4294 M

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 2Section 30Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

liability of the employer and, hence, the employer's and employee's contribution cannot be treated differently insofar as the deductions permissible under Section 36 (1) (va) 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has ignored the basic fact that penalty proceedings are separate and independent proceedings, thus, reliance placed ... payments on time. This was not any lapse from part of the assessee warranting to the addition by invoicing the provisions of section 36(1)(va) and section 2(24(x). 6. This issue was raised in a prominent newspapers at that time. The said newspaper cuttings has been attached

Kutumbh Care Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-14(4), Delhi

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

ITA 1482/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmakutumbh Care Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, 216A, 2Nd Floor, Gautam Ward-14(4), Nagar, New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadck0946K

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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

Nexion International Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ADIT, CPC Bangaluru Present Jurisdiction the DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1128/AHD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: 15-05-2020 Due To Lockdown On Account Of Covid- 19 & That The Assessee Made The Payment On 15-05-2020 As Per Circular, Therefore There Is No Delay.

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

ground raised by the assessee reads as under: 1. The learned ACIT CPC has erred in making addition of Rs.5,08,800/- under Section 36(1)(va) on the ground that the payment of PF for the month of March, 2020 is made late by one month in as much ... assessee even before NFAC, however without considering the same, confirmed the addition by passing a detailed “cut and paste order” on section 36(1)(va) of the Act by the NFAC, which is highly arbitrary and without application of mind. Ld. Counsel further submitted pursuant to the Circular dated

Carmel Convent, Thiruvananthapuram vs. ITO Exemption Ward, Trivandram, Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petition is dismissed

ITA 689/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmi

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Dr. Seethalakshmi, Judicial Member

Chandrani Compliments & Export (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-10(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2365/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.2365/Kol/2019 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Chandrani Compliments & Export (P) Ltd..........…...……………....Appellant 1, Tarpan Ghat Road, Kolkata – 700053. [Pan: Aabcc3652J] Vs. Dcit, Circle-10(1), Kolkata……..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri C. Roy, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 06, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 14.03.2019 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Contested The Very Validity Of The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Pcit. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Stated The Chronological Events By Stating That The Return For The Assessment Year Under Consideration I.E. A.Y 2012-13 Was Filed By The Assessee On 01.10.2012 Showing An Income Of Rs.67,5,030/-. Thereafter, The Scrutiny Assessment Was Completed On 19.12.2014 By The Ld. Dcit, Circle-10(1), Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Act, Wherein, The Income Of The

Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘बी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA "ी संजय गग

Kalipada Saha, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward 24(3), Hooghly

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1447/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg&Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 2Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

noteworthy, that this provision was part of the original IT Act; it has largely remained unaltered. On the other hand, Section 36(1)(va) was specifically inserted by the Finance Act, 1987, w.e.f. 01-04-1988. Through the same amendment, by Section 3(b), Section 2(24) – which defines various ... income. Since these amounts were not receipts that belonged to the assessee, but were held by it, as trustees, as it were, Section 36(1)(va) was inserted specifically to ensure that if these receipts were deposited in the EPF/ESI accounts of the employees concerned, they could be treated

Knowledgehut Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1051/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Knowledge Hut Solutions Pvt. Ltd., C/O. P Murali & Co., The Deputy Chartered Commissioner Accountants, Of Income Tax, 6-3-655/2/3, Circle – 4(3)(1), Somajiguda, Bangalore. Vs. Karnataka – 560 102. Pan: Aaecc4762E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Parithivel, JCIT (DR)

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH