“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)

DCIT Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bhupati Infrabuild Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 899/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, D.R

Section 132ASection 153C

tune of Rs.45,66,608/- and Rs.1,43,210/- on account of Provident Fund (PF) & Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) respectively under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the act on the ground that the assessee has failed to deposit the employees’ contribution ... employer’s qua employees’ contribution on account of PF & ESIC after due date prescribed under the relevant Act is not allowable deduction under section 36(1)(va) read with section 43B of the Act, the operative findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are as under: “51. The analysis

DCIT Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bhupati Infrabuild Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 898/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, D.R

Section 132ASection 153C

DCIT Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bhupati Infrabuild Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 897/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, D.R

Section 132ASection 153C

Anchor Offshore Services Limited, Mahim West Mumbai vs. CIT(Appeal), NFAC Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 911/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Hakani, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sh. Ashol Kr. Ambastha

Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

PF/ESIC deducted but deposited in respective funds, after the due date as prescribed under the relevant statutes, are not allowable as deductions under section 36(1)(va) of the Act, by concluding as under: “52. When Parliament introduced section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer ... Anchor Offshore Services Ltd. have been treated only as receipts not amounting to income. When Parliament introduced the amendments in 1988-89, inserting section 36(1)(va) and simultaneously inserting the second proviso of section 43B, its intention was not to treat the disparate nature of the amounts, similarly

Chemical Process Piping Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2045/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2045/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Chemical Process Piping बिधम/ Acit, Circle-14(1)(2) Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. Ground Floor, Cpe Plot, Road, Mumbai-400020. Bsd Marg, Govandi, Mumbai-400088. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccc6212D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar Revenue By: Shri Samual Pitta (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/07/2023 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. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 26.08.2021 For Ay. 2019-20. 2. It Is Noted That This Captioned Appeal Was Allowed In The First Round By This Tribunal Vide Order Dated 31.05.2022. However, The Same Has Been Recalled In Ma No. 428/Mum/2022 In The Light Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Decision In The Case Of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cit (448 Itr 518). Therefore, This Appeal Is Adjudicated Afresh. The Main Grievance Of Assessee Is Against The Action Of Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Disallowance Of Employee’S Contribution Made Towards Pf/Esi To The Tune Of Rs.8,12,924/-. 3. Despite Notice Of Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of This Appeal After Hearing The Ld. Dr. From A Perusal Of The Records, It Is Discerned That The Cpc Bangalore Passed The Intimation Order U/S 143(1) Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Made Adjustment Of Rs. 8,12,924/- U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act For Late Deposit Of Employee’S

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar SutharFor Respondent: Shri Samual Pitta (Sr. AR)

Section 10ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM

Reloy Shield Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-19(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 972/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

For Appellant: C. A

Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

provide certainty and rationalize the above provision, following amendment has been made in the Act through Finance Act 2021: a. Explanation to section 36(1)(va) has been added to clarify that the provision of section 43B does not apply and I.T.A. No. 972/Del/2023 deemed to never have been applied ... Annexure-I. 6. On merit that both on the facts and in law, no part of the said amount is disallowable under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s 43B of the Act as a same has been paid before due date of filing return of income. 7. We carve leave

M/S. Sri Venkateshwara Cans Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT (CPC) Bangalore, Bangalore

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

ITA 1481/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Sri Venkateswara Vs. Assistant Director Of Cans Private Limited Income Tax, Cpc, B Building, Unit No. 5, Income Tax Department, Tejpal Industrial Estate, Centralised Processing Andheri Kurla Road, Centre, Bangalore Sakinaka, Andheri 560500 Mumbai – 400072 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcs5704R Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Radhakant Saraf Respondent By : Suresh D. Gaikwad Date Of Hearing 13.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 09.03.2023 For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us:

For Appellant: Radhakant SarafFor Respondent: Suresh D. Gaikwad

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

towards employer's contribution towards PF & ESIC and thereby the employer's contribution to PF & ESIC is outside the ambit of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable thereto, the Ld CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance ... Rs.8,06,041/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act made by the AO on account of delayed payment without appreciating the fact that the same constitutes employer's contribution and is therefore covered by the provisions of Section 43B of the Act and therefore allowable as deduction

Wns Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comm. of Income Tax -14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2451/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234CSection 43BSection 92C

deleted. This ground of the assessee is allowed 17 ITA 2450 & 2451/Mum/2022 WNS Global Services Pvt Ltd Disallowance under section 36(1)(va) - Ground No.13 26. The Ld.AR in this regard submitted that the entire amount as mentioned in the tax audit report has been disallowed. However, the Ld.AR submitted

Wns Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comm. of Income Tax-14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2450/MUM/2022[208-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234CSection 43BSection 92C

Welgrow Hotels Concepts P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-27(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 436/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2018-19 Welgrow Hotels Concepts P. Ltd., Vs Ito, B-6, Geetanjali Enclave, Ward-27(1), Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 017. Pan: Aaacw5407C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Krishnan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.436/Del/2023 For Ay 2018-19 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, In Short] In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048179868(1) Dated 22.12.2022 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 154 R.W.S. 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 02.12.2020 By The Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward 27(1), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’). 2. The Only Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Confirming The Disallowance Made On Account Of Employee’S Contribution Of Provident Fund & Employee State Insurance In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case.

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, 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

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Delhi vs. Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2017-18 and appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 and 2018-19 are dismissed

ITA 2051/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shuklaasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Singh Kothari, CIT DR DR

Section 144Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36

disallowance of Rs. 1,22,36,776/- by invoking the provision of section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act, admittedly the contribution to the provident fund received from the employees have been made after the due date which is evident from the details incorporated ... decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.(2022) 143 taxmann 178. Accordingly the disallowance made under section 36(1)(va) of the Act on accounts of the delayed deposit to contribution to ESI and EPF has confirmed and the ground raised

Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2017-18 and appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 and 2018-19 are dismissed

ITA 1569/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shuklaasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Singh Kothari, CIT DR DR

Section 144Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36

Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, CC-2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2017-18 and appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 and 2018-19 are dismissed

ITA 1568/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shuklaasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Singh Kothari, CIT DR DR

Section 144Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36

Starline Workshop, Mumbai vs. ITO WD1(1) (1), Mumbai

ITA 1742/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return. 3. The Appellant Prays That The Adjustment Made In The Intimation Order U/S 143(1) Of The Act May Be Deleted. 4. The Appellant Craves Your Honour'S Leave To Add, Alter Or Amend Any Ground Of Appeal At The Time Of Hearing Or Before.”

For Appellant: Shri Ryan Saldanha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, D.R

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

short ‘the Act’) making adjustment of Rs.4,26,005/- to the return of income on account of income under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. 3. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal ... employees’ contribution on account of Provident Fund (PF), Employee’s State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) contribution after due date prescribed under the Act under section 36(1)(va) read with section 3 M/s. Starline Workshop 2(24)(x) of the Act but certainly before the due date of filing the return

Cargo Motors Gujrat Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 5(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 239/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(24)(X)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

captioned appeal relates to Assessment Years 2019-20 involving issue of disallowance of expenditure towards employees contribution to ESIC/PF under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 3. When the matter was called for hearing, none appeared for I.T.A. No.239/Del/2023 2 the assessee. Under the circumstances, we proceed ex-parte ... trust by the employer assessee are to be reckoned as taxable income under Section 2(24)(X) r.w. Section 43B and deduction under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act would not be permissible. The ld. Sr.DR on behalf of the Revenue further contended that the delayed deposits of employees

Smg International, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-30(5), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1500/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

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

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

erred in law and on facts in confirming the increase in income of Rs.2,40,532/- made by AO under section 36(1)(va) in respect of delayed deposit of PF/ESI contribution by the appellant. The action of ld. AO and ld. CIT(A) is not valid in the eyes ... w.e.f. 01.04.2021 as inserted by the Finance Act, 2021.” 4. The additional grounds are heard and dismissed owing to clear provisions of Section 36(1)(va) and Section 143(1)(A)(iv). 5. The matter has attained finality by the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein

Shri Devendra Singh Chouhan, Indore vs. The ITO Ward-1(4), Indore

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 202/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidevendra Singh Chauhan Ito-Ward 9, Schemeno.113, Vijay 1(4) Vs. Nagar Indore Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adcpc 7046 H Assessee By Shri Girdhar Garg, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25 .07.2023

Section 234ASection 36(1)(va)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY

Eximius Management Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for the statistical purpose

ITA 1565/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 20.07.2023

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 194JSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

assessee whether the payment made after the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts was an allowable deduction as per the provision of section 36(1)(va) of the Act, the Hon’ble Apex Court vide its order dated 12.10.2022 in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra

Eximius Management Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for the statistical purpose

ITA 1564/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 20.07.2023

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 194JSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

M/S. Guruji Infrastructure Pvt Ltd., Thane vs. ADIT, CPC, Karnataka

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1377/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Dinkle Haria &For Respondent: Suresh D. Gaikwad

Section 143Section 143(1)

P a g e | 1 M/s Guruji Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ADIT, CPC IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G