“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)

Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited (Erstwhile Known As Goodlass Nerolac Paints Limited), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT, Range 6 (2), Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3384/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

prescribed time - by way of contribution of the employees' share to their credit with the relevant fund is to be treated as deduction (Section 36(1)(va)). The other important feature is that this distinction between the employers' contribution (Section 36(1) (iv)) and employees' contribution required to be deposited

Rsb Projects Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-19(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 269/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Baldev Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

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

erred in upholding the addition to the tune of Rs. 25,64,321/- on account of employee's contribution of PF under section 36(1) (va) of the Act and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual ground. 3. That on the facts and in circumstances ... erred in upholding the addition to the tune of Rs. 1,67,462/- on account of employee's contribution of ESI under section 36(1) (va) of the Act and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual ground. 4. That on the facts and in circumstances

Shri Govind Singh, Rewa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Satna

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is dismissed

ITA 11/JAB/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. K.P Dewani, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)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 ... been allowed as deductions under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act when the payment was made beyond the relevant due date under the respective acts. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and later the Gujarat High Court dismissed the challenge against this order of AO. In appeal, the court

Gour Road Tar Coat Private Limited, Jabalpur vs. ACIT Circle 2(1), Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is dismissed

ITA 31/JAB/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Sachin Kumar Bajpai, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Shravan Kumar Gotru, CIT- DR

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

Atlantis Intelligence Ltd (Earlier Link Quest Telecom Ltd), New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-13(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 148/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmaasstt. Year : 2017-18 M/S Atlantis Intelligence Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-13(1), (Earlier Link Quest Telecom Ltd.) New Delhi C-314, 1St Floor, C.R. Building, Defence Colony, I.P. Estate, New Delhi – 110 024 New Delhi – 2 (Pan: Aaacl1613M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. S.M. Surana, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 30.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2023

For Appellant: Sh. S.M. Surana, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

assessee is against the disallowance made by the income-tax authorities of a sum of Rs. 10,81,046/- by invoking Section 36(1)(va) representing delay in deposit of employees contribution of ESI & PF within the stipulated period. At the time of hearing, Ld. Representative for the Assessee made ... deposited on 16.08.2016 and 22.11.2016 respectively. The Ld. Representative conceded that, in principle, the disallowance made by the income-tax authorities by invoking Section 36(1)(va) of the Act is in order in view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services

Chhattisgarh Sahakari Sakh Samiti Maryadit, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No 284, 286 &

ITA 287/RPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Nov 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.284,285,286,287/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year:2013-14,2017-18,2018-19,2020-21)

For Appellant: Shri M.C. Oswal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80p(2)Section 80p(2)(d)Section 80p(2)(l)

under the EPF Act, 1952 is to be construed as a payment made on or before the due date within the meaning of section 36(1)(va) of the Act? 11. Before proceeding any further, I may herein observe that the depositing other dues had been withdrawn w.e.f. February ... making respective payments was duly available to the assessee during the year under consideration. 12. As can be gathered from “Explanation 1” to Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, the term “due date” has been explained as under: “[Explanation 1]-For the purposes of this clause, "due date" means

Chhattisgarh Sahakari Sakh Samiti Maryadit, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No 284, 286 &

ITA 286/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.284,285,286,287/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year:2013-14,2017-18,2018-19,2020-21)

For Appellant: Shri M.C. Oswal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80p(2)Section 80p(2)(d)Section 80p(2)(l)

Chhattisgarh Sahakari Sakh Samiti Maryadit, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No 284, 286 &

ITA 285/RPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.284,285,286,287/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year:2013-14,2017-18,2018-19,2020-21)

For Appellant: Shri M.C. Oswal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80p(2)Section 80p(2)(d)Section 80p(2)(l)

Chhattisgarh Sahakari Sakh Samiti Maryadit, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No 284, 286 &

ITA 284/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.284,285,286,287/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year:2013-14,2017-18,2018-19,2020-21)

For Appellant: Shri M.C. Oswal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80p(2)Section 80p(2)(d)Section 80p(2)(l)

Mp Power Management Co.Ltd., Jabalpur vs. ACIT Circle 2(1), Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 65/JAB/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Nov 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Mehrotra, JCIT-DR

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

following grounds of appeal are as under:- 1. The learned CIT (Appeal) has erred in holding that due date as prescribed in section 36(1) (VA) and section 2(24) (x) were applicable to assessee. 2. The learned CIT (Appeal) failed to consider the various judgments especially the same issue ... being the employee's contribution to the PF and ESI, not deposited by the appellant within the due date as per section 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act, 1961, cannot be allowed and accordingly the solitary ground taken by the appellant is rejected. ” 5. The issue of payment

Circular Aircon Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 12(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2776/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2776/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Circular Aircon Services बिधम/ Ito, Ward-12(1)(4) 1St Floor, Income Tax Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 1, Mehta Industrial Estate, Office, New Marine Line, Jai Prakash Road No.2, Mumbai-400020. Goregaon (E), Mumbai- 400063. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccc6387P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Neha Paranjpe Revenue By: Shri Satya Prakash Singh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 09.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Exparte & Confirming The Disallowance Made By Cpc U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Ms. Neha ParanjpeFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Singh (Sr. AR)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

wherein the assessee has given the details of the contribution received from employees for various funds as referred to in section 36(1)(va) of the Act wherein the assessee has given the list of the employees contribution along with the details of sum received from employees/Due date for payment/the ... Rs.13,74,758/- (and not Rs.22,32,820/-) and the balance portion i.e. Rs.8,58,062/- was the suo- motto disallowance made under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The mistake happened (supra) because in the original ITR filed in Form no. 6, the assessee erroneously punched

B4S Solutions P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-13, New Del;Hi

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

ITA 3047/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Hon’Ble Vice-A N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Advocate

Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 154

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

R K & Company Manpower P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ciorcle-19(1), New Delbhi

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3014/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganesh

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

were not paid/remitted within the due dates prescribed under the PE and ESI Act, disallowed such deduction in terms with Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. 4. Though, the assessee contested the aforesaid disallowances by filing appeals before the first ... Before us, it is the specific contention of the assessee that due date, as per section 36(1)(va) of the Act, should be the date on which salary was actually disbursed to the employees and not the date on which salary was due. In this context, learned counsel

R K & Company Manpower P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-19(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3013/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganesh

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

R K & Company Manpower P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-20(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3012/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganesh

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

Bhim Singh, Gurgon vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Gurgaon

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

ITA 2979/DEL/2022[2019--20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Hon’Ble Vice-A N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Tiwari

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

36(1)(va) of the Act on account of contributions received from employees for funds referred in Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 6. That the CIT(A)/CPC has failed to appreciate that the Finance Act, 2021 amendment is prospective in nature and are applicable from ... same do not justify the addition/ disallowance made.” 3. The issue of whether the employees’ contribution to PF/ESI is allowable expenditure under section 36(1)(va) of the Act if it is paid beyond the due date specified under PF/ESI Act came up befor the Hon’ble Supreme Court

Bhim Singh, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Gurgon

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

ITA 2978/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Hon’Ble Vice-A N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Tiwari

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Vvr Engineering, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 236/VIZ/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Nov 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Sri Mdhukar Aves, Sr. AR

Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Circular No. 22/2015 dated 17/12/2015 wherein the claim of deduction relating to employee’s contribution to welfare funds which are governed by section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the amendment had been brought in Finance Act, 2021 that the delayed

Sri Seetaramanjanenya Sortex, Kakinada vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 147/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.147/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sri Seetaramanjaneya Sortex Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 1-2015/A, Uppalanka Income Tax Kakinada Visakhapatnam [Pan : Abdfs4641P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Paradeep Tayal & OrsFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 194A(3)(i)Section 194A(3)(iii)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्वूरु आर एल रेड्डी, न्याधयक सदस्य

M/S. Jai Enterprises, Raipur vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 107/RPR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.107/Rpr/2021) (Assessment Year: 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Learns Asst. Director of Income Tax (CPC) ("the Ld. CPC") in making the addition/disallowance of Rs.39,80,729/- Invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of delayed deposit of employees' contribution to Employees Provident Fund (EPF) & Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) beyond ... Jurisdictional Tribunal. (d)That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in placing reliance on & erroneously applying the amended provisions of sections 36(1)(va) & 43B of the Act as inserted vide the Finance Act, 2021 to the assessment year under reference which were expressly intended to be applied prospectively