“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)

Sai Computers Ltd., Meerut vs. ITO, Circle-1(1)(1), Meerut

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

ITA 2863/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR

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

concerning AY 2019-20. 2. As per the grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of employees’ contribution to PF/ESIC under Section 36(1)(va) r.w. Section 43B of the Act amounting to Rs.1,18,73,047/- 3. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel ... under the respective Acts applies to the employees’ contribution and the statute has treated employees and employers contribution differently after the insertion of Section 36(1)(va) in the statute. Thus, the crux of the judgment in Checkmate (supra) is that employees’ contribution stands on a different footing than employer

Sai Computers Ltd, Meerut vs. ITO, Circle-1(2)(1), Meerut

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

ITA 2862/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR

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

Tupperware India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1741/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1741/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 204-206, Tolstoy House, Cpc, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact3770D Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Tiwari, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, CIT-DR

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

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Burla, Sambalpur vs. DCIT Circle2(1), Sambalpur

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue being ITA No

ITA 41/CTK/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Girish Agrawalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.14 To 17/Ctk/2023 & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.41/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2016-2017 To 2020-2021) Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Vs Acit/Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. :Aabcm 5188 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.70 To 73/Ctk/2023 & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.147/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2016-2017 To 2020-2021) Acit/Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Vs Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. :Aabcm 5188 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.69/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Acit/Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Vs Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. :Aabcm 5188 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Poddar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Poddar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, कटक न्यायऩीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Burla, Sambalpur vs. DCIT Circle2(1), Sambalpur

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue being ITA No

ITA 14/CTK/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Poddar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, कटक न्यायऩीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI

Cargo Motors Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2465/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

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 2 Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd. 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

Sri Nirmal Chandra Padhiary, Balasore vs. ACIT, Balasore Circle, Balasore

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

ITA 157/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.157/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Sri Nirmal Chandra Padhiary, Vs Acit, Balasore Circle, Balasore Bampada, Chhanpur, Birla Tyre Road, Balasore-756056 Pan No. :Acupp 0872 B (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mr. Somanath Sahoo, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 25.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1049108098(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Time Barred By 35 Days. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Filed An Application Along With Affidavit Of The Assessee For Condonation Of The Delay, To Which The Ld. Sr. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay. On Perusal Of The Application & The Affidavit Of The Assessee, We Found That The Delay Occurred Due To Bonafide Reasons. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 35 Days In Filing The Appeal & Appeal Is Disposed Off Finally. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That Two Additions Are Challenged In This Appeal, One Is Against The Disallowance Of Pf & Esi Paid Belatedly

For Appellant: Shri Mr. Somanath Sahoo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, Sr. DR

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

Supreme Court has also admittedly held that the provisions of section 43B of the Act would not apply to the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of employees contribution. Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services ... interest of justice. This direction is being given because ld AR has submitted that as the amount is not allowable under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and same is also not covered under section 43B of the Act, the amount of delayed contribution

Incred Management and Technology Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Income Tax Dept., Mumbai

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

ITA 1535/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalincred Management & Technology Services Pvt. Ltd. Unit No. 1203, 12Th Floor, B-Wing, The Capital, Plot No. C-70, G-Block, Bkc, Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Aagcb6271M ...... Appellant Vs. Cit (A)/Nfac Income Tax Department, Mumbai ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Dalmia, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 250

audit report containing schedule 20(b) i.e. details of contribution received from employees for various funds as referred to in section 36(1)(va). As per this schedule 20(b), In view of this, we hereby confirm the findings in the order of Ld. CIT (A) and ground

Lal Babu Pandey, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 275/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: C. A

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

books of accounts and not being deposited within the due dates specified under the relevant acts as given in Explanation-1 to section 36(1)(va)deduction u/s.36(1)(va) was not claimed thus on its subsequent accounting in the books of account including deposit with additional liability of interest ... 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

Lal Babu Pandey, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(4), Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1232/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: C. A

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Chw Forge Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Spl Range 2(4), Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2980/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Chandra Mohan Garg & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediachw Forge Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit Near Hapur Road Flyover, Special Range 2(4) Maliwara, Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh - 201 001 Pan No. Aaacc 6049 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Manoj Singhal, C.A. Revenue By Shri N. K. Bansal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am :

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

grounds of appeal, the assessee seeks to challenge the disallowance of employees contribution to provident fund under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act read with Section 43B of the Act to the extent of Rs.12,84,043/-. 3. When the matter was called for hearing, the Learned Counsel made ... case was selected under scrutiny and the assessment was framed under Section 143(3) of the Act where no such addition/disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 143 of the Act were made. The intimation framed under Section 143(1) of the Act thus merges with the assessment

Signature Services Syndicate, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-20(4), Delhi

Accordingly, ground no. 1 is allowed for statistical

ITA 2522/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

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

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Teradata India Pvt Ltd, Grugram vs. DCIT Circle-3(1), Gurugram

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

ITA 2337/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 80G

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

ACIT-Circle-3(1), Gurgaon vs. Teradata India Private Limited, Gurgaon

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

ITA 1430/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 80G

Teradata India P.Ltd, Gurugram vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Gurugram

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

ITA 1248/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 80G

DCIT, Circle, Bhilwara vs. M/S. Suzuki Textiles Ltd., Bhilwara

ITA 151/JODH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 30(2)Section 31Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

Vinod Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 76(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 41/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Rs.22,81,075/- for AY 2019-20)by disallowing the employees contribution to staff welfare schemes under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 3. That the additional interest charged u/s 234B and 234C of the Act amounting to Rs. 5,37,883/- (Rs.3 ... grossly erred in raising a demand towards tax of Rs.1,73,843/- by disallowing the employees contribution to staff welfare schemes under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act 1961.” 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. 5. The ld. DR submitted that in this case