“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)

Mb Power (Madhya Pradesh) Limited, South East Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-20, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3850/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M.B.Power (Madhya Pradesh) Vs Dcit, Ltd., 239, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-2, Estate, Nehru Place, Gurgaon Delhi -110019. Pan-Aafcm6698A Appellant Respondent

Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

ITA No.3850/Del/2023 & Others IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “E” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dusters Total Solutions Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 980/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 80J

deposited after the statutory due date, then the amount contributed by the employees will be income of the assessee under provision of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also explained the difference between employer’s contribution and employee’s contribution ... employer’s contribution falls under section 43B, while employees’ contribution is governed only by section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Therefore, section 43B of the Act cannot override section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) held that this decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

Dusters Total Solutions Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 653/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 80J

Dusters Total Solutions Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 652/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Smt. Kavita Jha, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 80J

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

Rajendra Kumar Shrivastava, Durg vs. ITO, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 744/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.744/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Rajendra Kumar Shrivastava, Mig-42, Padmanabhpur, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan: Alops3921M

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 154Section 154(2)(B)Section 154(8)Section 155Section 186Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

36(va) Explanation 1 and Explanation 2 amendment was from 01.04.2021 effective from A.Y.2022-23, hence, Explanation 2 is prospective amendment to provisions of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act vide Finance Act, 2021 by inserting Explanation 2 was prospective in nature and was applicable only from

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12, Pune vs. Yantrik Engineering Private Limited, Pune

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

ITA 1283/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1283/Pun/2023 Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Respondent: Appellant by Shri Amit Bobde

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 37(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Ntt Data Business Solutios Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 489/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.489/Hyd/2022 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Ntt Data Business The Dcit, Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad. Circle-5(1), Vs. Pin -500081. Hyderabad. Pan Aadci1557Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Aliasgar Rampurawala राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: CA Aliasgar RampurawalaFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144

directions in this regard. b) making disallowance of INR 34,35,859 towards delay in deposit of employees contribution to provident fund under section 36(1)(va) of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the same were deposited on or before the due date for filing the return

Bmc Electroplast Private Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1871/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Bmc Electroplast Pvt. Ltd…..……..………………….……….……….……Appellant 130/22, Bakrahat Road, B S Industrial Estate, Hanspukur, South 24 Parganas, Kol – 700104. [Pan: Aabcb0407E] Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Kolkata…………...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Rip Das, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Ruchika Sharma, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 10, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.12.2024 Of The Cit(Appeal), Addl/Jcit(A), Agra (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In This Case, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y 2017-18 On 04/11/2017 Declaring A Total Loss Of Rs. 1,60,82,362/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (Cass). The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Determining The Total Loss At Rs. 65,20,241/- After Making Certain Disallowances As Follows: Bmc Electroplast Pvt. Ltd A) Disallowance Of Excess Claim Of Deduction U/S 35(2Ab) Amounting To Rs. 56,73,734/-

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

Eris Lifesciences Limited, Ahmedabad vs. NFAC, Delhi (Present Jurisdiction- the Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1)), Ahmedabad

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 915/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

conference related expenses amounting to ₹33,59,890/-. The AO further disallowed employees’ contribution to provident fund amounting to ₹3,84,012/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act since the same was deposited beyond the statutory due date, relying on the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court ruling in Gujarat ... that the AO’s 7.5% estimation was excessive or arbitrary, the CIT(A) confirmed both disallowances in full. On the PF disallowance under section 36(1)(va), the CIT(A) held that the issue was now conclusively settled by the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd (2022), which held

Eris Lifesciences Limited, Ahmedabad vs. NFAC, Dehi (Present Jurisdiction- the Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 914/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

conference related expenses amounting to ₹33,59,890/-. The AO further disallowed employees' contribution to provident fund amounting to 3,84,012/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act since the same was deposited beyond the statutory due date, relying on the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court ruling in Gujarat ... that the AO's 7.5% estimation was excessive or arbitrary, the CIT(A) confirmed both disallowances in full. On the PF disallowance under section 36(1)(va), the CIT(A) held that the issue was now conclusively settled by the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd (2022), which held

Eris Lifesciences Limited, Ahmedabad vs. NFAC, Delhi (Present Jurisdiction - the Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1)), Ahmedabad

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 913/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

Eris Lifesciences Limited, Ahmedabad vs. NFAC, Dehi (Present Jurisdiction- the Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1)), Ahmedabad

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 912/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

DCIT Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs. Eris Lifesciences Limited Shivarth Ambit, Bodakdev Ahmedabad

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 850/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

Dcie Circle-2(1)(1), Ahemdabad, Vejalpur vs. Eris Lifesciences Limited Shivarth Ambit, Bodakdev Ahmedabad

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 849/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

DCIT Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Eris Lifesciences Limited Shivarth Ambit, Bodakdev Ahmedabad

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 848/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

conference related expenses amounting to ₹33,59,890/-. The AO further disallowed employees' contribution to provident fund amounting to ₹3,84,012/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act since the same was deposited beyond the statutory due date, relying on the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court ruling in Gujarat ... that the AO's 7.5% estimation was excessive or arbitrary, the CIT(A) confirmed both disallowances in full. On the PF disallowance under section 36(1)(va), the CIT(A) held that the issue was now conclusively settled by the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd (2022), which held

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Eris Lifescience Limited Shivarth Ambit, Ahmedabad

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 847/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

Vinayak Hanumantrao Ghorpade, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 1439/PUN/2024[AY2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2025

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.1438 & 1439/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Vinayak Hanumantrao V Vaishnavi Satish Bankar, Ghorpade, S. Pune. F.No.7, Plot No.60/61, S.No.165/1B, Shivanjali, Near Central Circle-1(3), Pune. Mahadev Temple, Indira Nagar, Pune – 411033. Pan: Afdpg6919A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar –Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-11 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2019-20 & 2020-21, Both Dated 02.05.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.153A R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Both Dated 23.09.2021.For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals

Section 153ASection 250Section 43BSection 68Section 80C

case and in law Ld. CIT has erred in making a disallowance of Rs. 6,75,072/- by invoking provisions of section 36(1)(va) of IT Act, 1961, being ESIC contribution of AY 2019-20, by rejecting the appellant's contention. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances

Vinayak Hanumantrao Ghorpade, Pune vs. Vaishnavi Satish Bankar, Pune

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 1438/PUN/2024[AY2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2025

Section 153ASection 250Section 43BSection 68Section 80C

M/S. Kanak Projects Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1219/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarmam/S Kanak Projects Ltd. Vs Acit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata Salarpuria Jajodia @ Co.7, Chittaranjan Avenue, Kol-72. Pan No. : Aabck1255F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S. Jhajharia, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Pandey, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm : This Appeal By The Assessee Arises Against The Order Dated 09.04.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration Declaring A Total Income Of ₹99906480. The Assessee Subsequently Filed A Revised Return Declaring The Same Income. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Statutory Notices Under Section 142(1) Were Served. In Response, The Assessee Filed Audited Financial Statements, Computation Of Income, Details Of Receipts & Expenses & Explanations As Called For. From The Tax Audit

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

been deposited by the assessee beyond the due date prescribed under the Employees’ Provident Fund Act. Invoking section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va), the AO added the delayed deposit to the total income of the assessee. The AO further observed from the financial statements that

Netcracker Technology Solutions (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle - 5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

ITA 730/HYD/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Dec 2025

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 92C(3)

1) of the Act is limited in nature and when different High Courts have taken different views on allowance of deduction under section 36(1)(va) read with section 43B of the Act, with respect to payment of employee's contribution to PF/ESI having already been done by the appellant