“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)

Sionc Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 40/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.40/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Sionc Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of D.No.43-11-56, Subbalakshminagar Income Railway New Colony Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aalcs7973C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

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

A.Y.2019-20 SIONC Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd, Visakhapatnam 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the amendment carried in the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) is prospective from A.Y.2020-21 as per the Memorandum explaining to the Finance Bill and hence could not be applied to the relevant assessment ... employees contribution of EPF and ESI paid beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective Act and these funds are referred in section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The information gives the details of due date of payment, actual date of payment to the concerned authorities and these payments

Vaibhav Global Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 96/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CIT

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

1 [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC). The Hon'ble Court held as under- "...The significance of this is that Parliament treated contributions under section 36(1)(va) differently from those under section 36(1)(iv). The latter (hereinafter, "employers' contribution") is described as "sum paid by the assessee ... employer by way of contribution towards a recognizedprovident fund". However, the phraseology of section 36(1)(va) differs from section 36(1)(iv), it enacts that "any sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section

Ashish Vishnuprakash Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Assisstant, Dy. Commisstioner of Income Tax, Karnataka

In the result both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 994/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashik Kumar Ambastha, DR

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 38

which was processed by passing an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act, wherein a disallowance of ₹472,313/- under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was made on account of deposit of Employees’ Contribution towards Provident Fund ITA Nos. 993 994/Mum/2022 Ashish ... other judgments, allowed the appeal of the assessee. The co- ordinate Bench directed the learned Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance under Section 36(1) (va) of the Act read with section 2(24) (x) of the Act. Subsequently, the Revenue preferred the Miscellaneous Application before the co-ordinate Bench

Ashish Vishnuprakash Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Assisstant, Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka

In the result both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 993/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashik Kumar Ambastha, DR

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 38

ACIT, Circle- 8(1), New Delhi vs. Earthline Apparels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6475/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

noteworthy, that this provision was part of the original IT Act; it has largely remained unaltered. On the other hand, Section 36(1)(va) was specifically inserted by the Finance Act, 1987, w.e.f. 01-04-1988. Through the same amendment, by Section 3(b), Section 2(24) – which defines various ... income. Since these amounts were not receipts that belonged to the assessee, but were held by it, as trustees, as it were, Section 36(1)(va) was inserted specifically to ensure that if these receipts were deposited in the EPF/ESI accounts of the employees concerned, they could be treated

Muktar Automobiles Private Limited, Verna vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

ITA 47/PAN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No. 41/Pan/2021 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Goa Electronics Ltd., Ground Floor, Sharma Shakti Bhavan, Edc Complex, Patto, Panaji, Goa – 403 001 . . . . . . . अपीलाथी / Appellant Pan:Aaacg7029G

For Appellant: Adv. Ms Eesha Dukle forFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

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

॥ आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, पणजी न्यायपीठ, पणजी में ॥ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANJI BENCH, PUNE BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI

Goa Electronics Limited, Panaji vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

ITA 41/PAN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Adv. Ms Eesha Dukle forFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

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

M/S Gulabchand & Co., Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC Bangalore, Mumbai

ITA 1889/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathyआअसं.1889 /मुं/2022(िन.व.2018-19)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan, Sr. AR

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

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई पीठ “ एच ”,मुंबई "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं सु"ी प"ावती, लेखाकार सद" के सम

Shri Inderjit Bajaj, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 76/ASR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.76/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(1)Section 250oSection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

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

Excellent Projects India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT, Mumbai

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

ITA 1648/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Act. Similarly, In Ay 2019-20 On Disallowance Of Rs. 12,07,310/- Was Made U/S 36(1)(Va) In The Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Assessee Has Relied Upon The Various Judgements Of The Tribunal As Well As Hon’Ble Bombay High Court, Wherein It Has Been Held That, If Employee’S Contribution To Pf/Esic Has Been Made Beyond The Due Date Another Prescribed That On Before The Due Date Of Filling Of Return Of Income Is Allowed U/S 143(3) Of The Act.

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

could 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. As discussed previously ... 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

Excellent Projects India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC Bangalore, Bangalore

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

ITA 1647/MUM/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2023AY 2019-2020

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Gd Foods and Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle 26, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 221/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Section 10Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 4Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Lit India P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-15(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2698/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sh. Atul Puri, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR

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

India P. Ltd. 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

Lit India P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 15(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2697/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Atul Puri, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR

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

Krishna Upkeep P Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 14(3), Delhi

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

ITA 2273/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Sh. R. K. Gour, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Kant Choudhary, 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 with Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act, such sums Krishna Upkeep Pvt. Ltd. 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

Krishna Upkeep P Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 14(3), Delhi

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

ITA 2272/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sh. R. K. Gour, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Kant Choudhary, Sr. DR

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

Nanesh Projects, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 63/RPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C.Roy, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 43B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, रायपुर न्यायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR श्री रविश सूद, न्याधयक सदस्य

Cochin Port Authority ( Formerly Cochin Port Trust), Kochi vs. DCIT Non Corporate Circle 2(1), Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 655/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Jul 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Gopi K, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 260ASection 263Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

deposited beyond the time allowed for the same under the EPF Act, i.e., in terms of sec.2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act; (b) Provision for bad and doubtful debts, at Rs.1,55,57,493 as against the correct amount of Rs.1

Hasmukh Khetshi Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-23(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1251/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: PendingITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathyआअसं.1251 /मुं/2023(िन.व.2018-19) Hasmukh Khetshi Shah, 138/150, Dadi Sheth Agiyari Lane, Mumbai 400 002 Pan: Aapps-1090-K ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Dcit, Cir.23(1), Matru Mandir, Mumbai 400 007. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Ashok Mehta ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Smt. Usha Gaikhwad

For Appellant: Shri Ashok MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Usha Gaikhwad

Section 10Section 36(1)(va)

Weltech Facility Management Services (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-27(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand

ITA 265/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ramdhan Meena, Sr. DR

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

submission along with synopsis. Learned counsel has pleaded on the applicability of amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 to explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and explanation 5 to section 43B which is effective from 01.04.2021, i.e. prospectively. On this contention, he submitted that the controversy ... therefore, according to him, the provisions of section 43B were never to be applied for the purpose of section 2(24)(x) and section 36(1)(va) from the date when they came into force. Since, the amendments have been specifically made effective from 01.04.2021 brought in by Finance