“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)

M/S. Raj Pipes, Rajnandgaon vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1), Raipur

ITA 150/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(va)

disallowance of the 3 M/s. Raj Pipes Vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur said amount could have been made under the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s.2(24)(x) of the Act. I, thus, on the basis of my aforesaid observations, therein, concurring with the claim ... aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and vacate the disallowance of Rs.91,150/- made by the A.O by triggering provisions of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.(ii) raised by the assessee is allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations.” (vi) Thereafter

Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-4(1), Raipur

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

ITA 81/RPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.81/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd. Executive Director (Fin.), Csptcl, Second Floor, Sldc Building, Cseb Office Campus, Danginiya Raipur-492 013 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5773E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

funds, viz. Employee’s Provident fund (EPF) and Employee’s State Insurance (ESI) is liable to be disallowed as per the mandate of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. 19. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case ... that the delayed deposit of employee’s share of contribution towards EPF & ESI is liable to be disallowed as per the mandate of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. The Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that the employee’s share of contribution towards

Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Raipur

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

ITA 143/RPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Tab India Granites Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 136/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl.CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(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

Dhabriya Polywood Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 122/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani,CA &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl.CIT

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

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 5 DHABRIYA POLYWOOD LIMITED VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR forms part of the employers’ income ... later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by 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

S.S.Flexi Pack Private Limited, Raipur vs. ACIT-Circle-1(1), Raipur

ITA 97/RPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.97/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 S.S. Flexi Pack Private Limited Near Barkha Hotel, Station Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aahcs3562K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-DR

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

liable to be disallowed as per the mandate of 4 S.S. Flexi Pack Private Limited Vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. As pointed out by the Ld. DR, and, rightly so, the order of the Tribunal in the captioned ... that the delayed deposit of employee’s share of contribution towards EPF & ESI is liable to be disallowed as per the mandate of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. The Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that the employee’s share of contributions towards

Roche Products (India) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Asst Comm of Income Tax-1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 307/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.307/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Roche Products (India) Pvt. बिधम/ Acit-1(3)(1) Ltd. Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Vs. 8Th Floor, 146-B, 166A, Unit Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. No.7, 8 & 9, R City Mall Road, Mumbai-400020. Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai- 400086. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr2744K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shrihari Iyer Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2023 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 09.12.2022 For Ay 2018-19. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Pointed Out That The Adjustment Made By The Cpc U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Disallowing The Employee’S Contribution Towards Pf/Esic For Belated Deposits Is In Line With The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cit (448 Itr 518). Therefore, He Does Not Contest The Action Of The Cpc On Principle As Such. However, His Limited Prayer Is That This Lapse (Of Not Depositing The Employee’S Contribution Within The Due- Date) Was Only In Few Months (Refer Chart Infra). According To Assessee, A Careful Perusal Of The Deposit Of Contribution In The Relevant Government Account Of Pf/Esic, It Would Reveal That Assessee Had Been Depositing More Amount I.E. Advance Amount In The Relevant

For Appellant: Shri Shrihari IyerFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)

Section 143(1)

filing of return of income is allowable u/s 43B of the Act. 4 A.Y. 2018-19 Roche Products (India) b) Amendment to section 36(1)(va) of the Act vide Finance Act, 2021 is prospective and effective from 1 April 2021 i.e. AY 2021-22. c) Disallowance of employee

Sangir Plastics Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 1062/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40A(7)Section 43B

Officer/CPC to delete the same. 14. The next issue contested by the assessee relates to disallowance of Rs. 1,52,240/- made under section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of employees’ contribution. The Learned AR submitted that the provident fund dues received from employees for the month

Sangir Plastics Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1061/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40A(7)Section 43B

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1922/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash (Sr

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 41Section 43B

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, with effect from 1-4-1988. Through the same amendment, by section 3(b), section 2(24) which ... 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

Hawa Singh, Delhi vs. ITO-Ward, 62 (1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2535/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Hawa Singh, Vs Ito, F-228/A, Main Lane Lado Sarai, Ward-62(1), Mehrauli, New Delhi-110030. New Delhi. Pan-Avpps1958R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Mukul Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2023

Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

erred in confirming the disallowance made by the Ld. AO amounting Rs, 15,33,114/- by invoking provisions of Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the ld. A.O. amounting