“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)

Bhargab Engineering Works, Howrah vs. PCIT, Central Kolkata 2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1161/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

which was deposited late and beyond the due date for payment and, therefore, was not an allowable expenditure as per section 36(1)(va) of the Act, which was not considered by the ld. AO while framing the assessment under ITA No.: 1161/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Bhargab Engineering Works ... dated 30.03.2023, and the expenditure claimed was required to be disallowed. Therefore, a sum of ₹ 17,03,551/- to be disallowed under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and another sum of ₹ 45,236/-, which was required to be disallowed as per Explanation 1 to sub-section (1

Neelanchal High Rise LLP, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1343/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Toshniwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT-DR

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

deleting the addition of Rs. 22,218/- made by the AO by wrongly and illegally Page 2 of 5 invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act, in respect of deposit of employees contribution to Provident Fund. 3. That on the facts and on the circumstances

Course5 Intelligence Limited, Bangalore vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-2, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1288/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2020-21 Course5 Intelligent Ltd., Vs. Pcit - 2, Unit 104, Ladybird Building C4, 1St Floor, Bangalore. Brigade Tech Gardens Sez, Kundalahallis.O. Bangalore North, Bangalore– 560 037, Karnataka. Pan : Aabcc 6525 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Balusamy N, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2025

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

from the employees towards PF/ESI contribution which has not been remitted within due date is specified in the respective Act. Therefore as per section 36(1)(va) of the Act, the same should be disallowed. Accordingly, the learned Pr.CIT set aside the Assessment Order passed by the AO dated

Sai Corp Creations Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, C R Building

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 3451/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalsai Corp Creations Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit D-8/2, Vasantvihar, Circe-22(2), C. R. Building, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aatcs7145L Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ms. Tanvi Khurana, Ca Revenue By Sh. Piyush Tripathi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025

Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

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

Poonam Sabharwal, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-28(5), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1183/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

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

Appeals)/ NFAC [hereinafter referred as “CIT(A)”] dated 07.01.2025 for A.Y. 2017-18 and A.Y. 2021-22 in sustaining the disallowance made under Section 36(1)(va) read with section 43B in respect of employee’s contribution to PF/ ESI while processing the return of income under Section 143 (1 ... disallowance in respect of employees contribution to PF/ESI. 3. We observed that the issue as to whether there can be any disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) read with section 43B of the Act in respect of employee’s contribution to PF/ ESI while processing the return under Section

Poonam Sabharwal, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-28(5), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1182/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

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

Manmegh Singh Kanwar, Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO, Ward-73(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3063/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Manmegh Singh Kanwar Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income Tax, 4R, 503, Gurjinder Vihar, Cpc Awho Township Greater Bangalore Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida U.P. Pan No.Avqps3897N Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ms. Priyanka Jindal, Advocate Revenue By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2025

Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Income Tax (Appeals)/ NFAC [hereafter referred as “CIT(A)”] vide order dated 12.11.2021 for A.Y. 2018-19 in sustaining the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act in respect of PF/ESI contribution while processing the return under Section 143(1 ... delayed deposit of employees' share of contribution towards Employees' State Insurance (ESI) and Employees Provident Fund (EPF) of Rs.28,21,065/- under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act of 1961 was disallowed by the order dated 16.12.2021. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal under

M/S Ujvn Limited, Uttarakhand vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Uttarakhand

ITA 127/DDN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Nov 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

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

Services (P) Ltd. in ITA No.696/Del/2024. Though the delayed payment of employees contribution of PF & ESI is not allowable as expenses as per section 36(1)(va) of the Act however, we find force in the argument of the assessee for the purpose of due date under the respective

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Subhash Road vs. Ujvn Limited, Gms Road

ITA 126/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

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

Sri Lakshmi Road Transport Company, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1209/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1209/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Sri Lakshmi Road Vs. Dy. Cit Transport Company Circle 6(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aatfs6596A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

claim of employees contribution towards ESI and PF is alternatively to be allowed under section 37(1) when it is disallowed under section 36(1)(va) of the Act”. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of transportation ... Further, he submitted that the sole issue involved in the appeal of the assessee relates to the disallowance of Rs.14,51,140/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of employees’ contribution towards PF and ESI. He submitted that the intimation under section 143(1

Microsoft Corporation (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2933/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Capgemini Technology Services India Limited ( Successor of Aricent Technologies Holdings Limited), Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1260/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vyomesh PathakFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155(18)Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(7)Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)

Finance Act, 2021 which came after filing the Return of Income for the Asst. year 2020-21 by adding explanation2 in the section 36(1)(va) which says that the provisions of Section 43B shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied for the purposes

Birlasoft Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 8, Pune

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

ITA 1116/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Birlasoft Limited Dcit, Circle – 8, Pune 35 & 36, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Vs. Park, Phase-1, Midc, Hinjawadi, Pune – 411057 Pan: Aaack7308N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-11-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, V.P: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.08.2023 Of The Ld. Cit(A) / Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assesse Is A Public Limited Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Computer & Software Services. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.11.2018 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.95,13,15,400/-. The Return Was Processed By The Cpc & An Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Was Passed On 25.01.2021 Determining The Total Income At Rs.1,00,23,03,750/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Assessment Under The E-Assessment Scheme, 2019 On The Following Issues:

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 10A(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 27Section 36(1)(va)Section 51Section 80ISection 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA

Thriveni Sainik Mining Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle 3(1), Gurgaon

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1379/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Oravel Stays Limited (Formerly Known As Oravel Stays Private Limited), Gurugram vs. DCIT Central Circle 6, New Delhi

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

ITA 577/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 194Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

confirming disallowance of INR 62,04,444 made by the assessing officer under section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding the due date for deposit of employee's contribution to provident ... respective Act. 4.2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding that amendment made vide Finance Act. 2021 under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and section 43B of the Act is retrospective in nature. 5. That the CIT(A) erred on facts

Oravel Stays Limited (Formerly Known As Oravel Stays Private Limited), Gurugram vs. DCIT Circle 76(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 452/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 194Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

Muniswamy Reddy Venkatesha, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-4(3)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 178/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan K

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri.Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 36(1)(va)

together. Therefore, we are passing a common Order for all the years. All these 3 appeals are arising out of addition made under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Assessee filed appeal against 143(1)(a) of the Act before learned CIT(A) with delay which was not condoned

Muniswamy Reddy Venkatesha, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle- 4(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 177/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan K

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri.Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 36(1)(va)

Muniswamy Reddy Venkatesha, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 176/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan K

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri.Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 36(1)(va)

Nagahat Tea Estate Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Jorhat

ITA 20/GTY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 119(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80

supra). For all these reasons, as discussed above, the assessee succeeds on this issue. 3.1 Regarding the issue of adjustment under section 36(1)(va) of the Act, it is clear that the clarificatory Circular No. 37/2016 (supra) leaves no room for any doubt that any adjustment therein needs