← All Phrases

“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)

Malgudi Foods Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 2308/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemalgudi Foods Pvt Ltd Vs. Dcit, Cpc 8, Kamala Bhavan Bangalore. Sharma, Industrial Estate, Walbhat Road, Rammandir (E), Mumbai – 400063. Pan/Gir No. : Aaecm8352L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri T. Shankar. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 143(1) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar. DR
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

reported to be ‘due date’ in column 20 (b) in respect of contributions received from employees for various funds as referred to in Section 36(1)(va) and the fact that the expression ‘due date’ has been defined under Explanation (now Explanation 1) to Section 36(1)(va) provides that ... just a factual report about the fact of payments and the fact of the due date as per the Explanation to Section 36(1)(va). This due date, however, has not been found to be decisive in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble Courts above

DCIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 5978/MUM/2004[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Range 6(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4754/MUM/2004[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

S.R.Hospital, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Muzaffarnagar

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

ITA 2894/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(24)(X)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.5,75,152/-. 3. When the matter was called for hearing, none appeared for I.T.A ... 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

Vigilant Security Placement & Detective Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2740/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2019-20 Vigilant Security Placement & Versus Dcit, Circle 16(1), Detective Services Pvt. Ltd., P-23, New Delhi. Old Double Story, Lajpat Nagar-4, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacu0237C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

date prescribed under the PF and ESI Acts, the same cannot be allowed as deduction in view of the provisions contained under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that in such circumstances, the employees contribution to PF and ESI not deposited within

Rt Vision Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 20(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 274/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80Section 80I

Department amounting to Rs.2,72,901/- on account of alleged delay in deposit of employees contribution to PF and ESI Fund under section 36(1) (va) of the Act as prescribed in the respective Act, without considering the fact that the same has been deposited before due date of filing ... erred in law and facts of the case in holding that the amendments made in Finance Act, 2021 under section 36(1)(va) and 43B of I.T.A. No.274/Del/2022 2 the Act are applicable retrospectively which is completely arbitrary and baseless. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming

M.R.Overseas Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 16(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 2470/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita Nos. 2470 & 2469/Del/2022 (Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20) M. R. Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit 204, Wason Chambers, Circle – 16(1) B-9, Model Town-Ii, New Delhi Delhi-110 009 Pan No. Aaccm 1636 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Nivedita, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.06.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 05.08.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20. 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Both The Parties Submitted That Though The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are For Two Different Assessment Years But The Facts & Issues Involved In Both The

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 3(1)(va)Section 36(1)(va)

taxability of such income in the hands of the assessee. Once such an amount becomes income of the employer- assessee, then section 36(1)(va) comes into play for providing the ITA Nos.2470 & 2469/Del/22 M/s. M.R. Overseas Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 6 deduction. This provision provides that: `(va ... deduction for the employees’ share for depositing the same in the relevant funds beyond the due date as given in Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va) on the strength of section 43B. The latter section opens with a non-obstante clause and provides that a deduction otherwise allowable

M R Overseas P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 2469/DEL/2022[2019-20`]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita Nos. 2470 & 2469/Del/2022 (Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20) M. R. Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit 204, Wason Chambers, Circle – 16(1) B-9, Model Town-Ii, New Delhi Delhi-110 009 Pan No. Aaccm 1636 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Nivedita, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.06.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 05.08.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20. 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Both The Parties Submitted That Though The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are For Two Different Assessment Years But The Facts & Issues Involved In Both The

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 3(1)(va)Section 36(1)(va)

taxability of such income in the hands of the assessee. Once such an amount becomes income of the employer- assessee, then section 36(1)(va) comes into play for providing the ITA Nos.2470 & 2469/Del/22 M/s. M.R. Overseas Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 6 deduction. This provision provides that: `(va ... deduction for the employees’ share for depositing the same in the relevant funds beyond the due date as given in Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va) on the strength of section 43B. The latter section opens with a non-obstante clause and provides that a deduction otherwise allowable

Nov India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 547/MUM/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Nov India Private Limited Plot No. R/497, Ttc Industrial Area, Rabale, Navi Mumbai- 400 071 Pan: Aadcr4279E ...... Appellant Vs. Cit/Nfac Delhi ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Apurva Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Chetan Kacha, Ld. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 254(2)Section 36(1)

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), although assessee never bring this issue to the notice of Ld. CIT(A) and before us also, but assessee made

Sentinel Consultants P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-22(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8/DEL/2023[23019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2023

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Singla, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43BSection 44A

appeals relate to Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2019-20 involving identical issue of disallowance of expenditure towards employees contribution to ESIC/PF under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 3. Briefly stated, the assessee is engaged in the business of security I.T.As. No.7 & 8/Del/2023 2 man power supply ... employees contribution. Thereafter, in the absence of any response from assessee thereon, an intimation under Section 143(1) was issued whereby disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) was carried out for delayed deposit of employees contribution to PF and ESIC on the basis of information available in the tax audit

Sentinel Consultants P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-22(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Singla, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43BSection 44A

appeals relate to Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2019-20 involving identical issue of disallowance of expenditure towards employees contribution to ESIC/PF under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 3. Briefly stated, the assessee is engaged in the business of security I.T.As. No.7 & 8/Del/2023 2 man power supply ... employees contribution. Thereafter, in the absence of any response from assessee thereon, an intimation under Section 143(1) was issued whereby disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) was carried out for delayed deposit of employees contribution to PF and ESIC on the basis of information available in the tax audit

Gayatri Construction, Raigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raigarh

ITA 9/RPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Civil Appeal No.2833 of 2016 dated 12.10.2022, wherein it was held that as per the mandate of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act, the delayed deposit of employee’s share of contribution towards labour welfare funds, viz. Employee’s Provident ... 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. As pointed out by the Ld. DR, and, rightly so, the order of the Tribunal

Gayatri Construction, Raigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raigarh

ITA 8/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Civil Appeal No.2833 of 2016 dated 12.10.2022, wherein it was held that as per the mandate of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act, the delayed deposit of employee’s share of contribution towards labour welfare funds, viz. Employee’s Provident ... 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. As pointed out by the Ld. DR, and, rightly so, the order of the Tribunal

Mutyala Mohan, Bhilai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhilai

ITA 76/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Civil Appeal No.2833 of 2016 dated 12.10.2022, wherein it was held that as per the mandate of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act, the delayed deposit of employee’s share of contribution towards labour welfare funds, viz. Employee’s Provident ... 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. As pointed out by the Ld. DR, and, rightly so, the order of the Tribunal

Panchsheel Engineering Works, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bilaspur

ITA 7/RPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Civil Appeal No.2833 of 2016 dated 12.10.2022, wherein it was held that as per the mandate of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act, the delayed deposit of employee’s share of contribution towards labour welfare funds, viz. Employee’s Provident ... 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. As pointed out by the Ld. DR, and, rightly so, the order of the Tribunal

Panchsheel Engineering Works, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bilaspur

ITA 6/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Civil Appeal No.2833 of 2016 dated 12.10.2022, wherein it was held that as per the mandate of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act, the delayed deposit of employee’s share of contribution towards labour welfare funds, viz. Employee’s Provident ... 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. As pointed out by the Ld. DR, and, rightly so, the order of the Tribunal

M/S Sumeet Synfab (India) Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

ITA 59/RPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Civil Appeal No.2833 of 2016 dated 12.10.2022, wherein it was held that as per the mandate of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act, the delayed deposit of employee’s share of contribution towards labour welfare funds, viz. Employee’s Provident ... 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. As pointed out by the Ld. DR, and, rightly so, the order of the Tribunal

M/S Alankar Steels Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Begaluru

ITA 58/RPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Civil Appeal No.2833 of 2016 dated 12.10.2022, wherein it was held that as per the mandate of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act, the delayed deposit of employee’s share of contribution towards labour welfare funds, viz. Employee’s Provident ... 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. As pointed out by the Ld. DR, and, rightly so, the order of the Tribunal

Shri Ashok Kumar Yadav, Korba vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur

ITA 52/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Civil Appeal No.2833 of 2016 dated 12.10.2022, wherein it was held that as per the mandate of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act, the delayed deposit of employee’s share of contribution towards labour welfare funds, viz. Employee’s Provident ... 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. As pointed out by the Ld. DR, and, rightly so, the order of the Tribunal

M/S Neelkantham Systems Pvt. Ltd, Korba vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi

ITA 51/RPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Civil Appeal No.2833 of 2016 dated 12.10.2022, wherein it was held that as per the mandate of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act, the delayed deposit of employee’s share of contribution towards labour welfare funds, viz. Employee’s Provident ... 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. As pointed out by the Ld. DR, and, rightly so, the order of the Tribunal