“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)

C & C Constructions Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1543/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita Nos. 1543 & 1544/Del/2022 (Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15) C & C Constructions Ltd. Vs. Dcit 74, Hemkunt Colony, Central Circle – 19 New Delhi – 110 048 New Delhi Pan No. Aaacc 4543 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sibtain Raza, A.R. Revenue By Shri Javed Akhtar, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.04.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. 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 Appeals Are Identical Except For The Assessment Year & The

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

addition of Rs.42,47,836/- on account of PF & ESI contribution of employees deposited after the due date as prescribed in explanation to section 36(1)(va) of the Act.” 6. Similar ground are also raised by assessee in ITA No.1544/Del/2022 for A.Y. 2014-15. 7. Before ... 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 deduction. This provision provides that: `(va) any sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which

Shivendra Singh, Raipur vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur

ITA 13/RPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(va)

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 ... 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

Shivendra Singh, Raipur vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur

ITA 12/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(va)

Pramod Kumar Chand, Bhilai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

ITA 105/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(va)

Rajhara Engineering Works Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Dalli Rajhara vs. Assessing Officer, Ward - (2), Bhilai

ITA 110/RPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(va)

M/S. R N Construction, Bhilai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Bangalore

ITA 105/RPR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(va)

Bec Projects Limited, Bhilai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Bhilai

ITA 88/RPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(va)

Aklavya Industries Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 93/SRT/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.93/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Physical Hearing) Aklavya Industries Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, Ward1(1)(1), Plot No.2429, Road No. 24, Surat. Opp: Parle Bottling Plant, Gidc, Sachin, Surat - 394230 (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagcs6274F

Section 143(1)Section 14BSection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर

Armaan Industries Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Assessing Officer, Cir. 1(1)(1), Surat

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 286/SRT/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Armaan Industries Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1)(1) Plot No. 714, Road No. 7, Gidc, Surat. Vs. Sachin, Surat. Pan No. Aagcs 8010 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH (SMC), SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Physical hearing) Armaan Industries

Manju Singh, Kota vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Kota

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

ITA 56/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhlesh Kataria, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Manisha Choudhary, Addl.CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

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

Integrity Verification Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1843/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryintegrity Verification Ito, Services Pvt.Ltd., 11, Ward-3(2)(1), बनाम/ Tulsani Chambers, Mumbai. Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccg1281A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Gyaneshwar Kataram ""थ" की ओर से/Respondentby: Shri M.P.Ahuja, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 11/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 29/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Om Prakash Kant - Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.09.2021 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [ In Short, The “Ld.Cit(A)”] For Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19. The Appeal Was Originally Heard & Pronounced On 28.04.2022, However, Later On In View Of The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Checkmate Services Pvt.Ltd. Vs Cit In Ita Of No.2833/2016 Dated 12.10.2022 Has Been Recalled For Deciding The Issue Of Deduction U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act. Accordingly, This Appeal Came Before Us For Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Gyaneshwar KataramFor Respondent: Shri M.P.Ahuja, Sr.AR

Section 10Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

that “the deduction of employee’s contribution to PF/ESI paid after due date under the relevant Act is not allowable in terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Act and therefore, this falls in the nature of incorrect claim of the assessee. In terms of provision of section ... Since the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court operates from the date of introduction of the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act, the issue is no longer debatable and it is liable to be adjusted as an incorrect claim by the assessee. The contentions

Arun Kumar Verma, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer 1(2), Bhilai, Durg

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 80/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.79 & 80/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-2020 Arun Kumar Verma Plot No.152, Telgu Para, Maroda Tank, Maroda, Bhilai (C.G.) Pan : Abkpv0530H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Puja Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

With respect to the employee's contribution towards Provident Funds/ESI/ Labour Welfare Fund, as to whether disallowable or not with reference to section 36(1)(va) read with section 43B of the Act, different High Courts had been taking divergent views. With a view to rationalize this provision ... does not apply and deemed to never have been applied for the purposes of determining the "due date" under this clause The amended section 36(1)(va) is reproduced as under:- "36. (1) The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect of the matters dealt

Arun Kumar Verma, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer 1(2), Bhilai, Durg

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 79/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Puja Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

Santosh Kumar Nishad, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 108/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 107 & 108/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-2020 Santosh Kumar Nishad Mandhar, Mohadi, Tehsil : Dharsiwa, Raipur-493 111 (C.G.) Pan : Agfpn5475R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

Audit Report clearly reveals the "Details of the contribution received from employees for various funds as referred to in section 36(1)(va)" and the dates of payment/deposits made into the PF and ESI accounts of the employees. The columns in the table show the 'Due date of payment ... account of PF and ESI of the employees beyond the prescribed due date as per the respective Acts clearly attracted provisions of section 36(1) (va) 5 Santosh Kumar Nishad Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur ITA Nos. 107 & 108/RPR/2023 read with section 2(24)(x) of the Income

Santosh Kumar Nishad, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 107/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

Maruti Clean Coal and Power Ltd., Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

ITA 91/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 91/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Maruti Clean Coal & Power Limited Ward No. 42, Building No.14, Civil Lines Near Income Tax Colony Raipur(C.G.) Pan : Aadcm4810C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri V.K.Singh, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Section 139 of the Act was to be allowed as a deduction. On the contrary, the A.O had categorically observed, that as per Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, the deduction is allowable to the assessee only if it had made payment of the employees share of contributions ... welfare of such employees is income of the assessee provided the deduction is allowable u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. According to Section 36(1)(va) the deduction is allowable to the assessee only if the assessee made the payment of employees contribution to the employees account

Alsisar Hotels & Resorts Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commisioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

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

ITA 135/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: The Due Date Of The Filing Of Return During The Year. 2. That The Petitioner Raves To Add, Alter Or Amend All Or Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Due Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Rathore (C.A.)For Respondent: None a

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

1) on account of assessee’s failure to pay the employee’s contribution of PF/ESI within the prescribed due dates as per Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the order issued U/s 143(1) of the IT Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before ... Supreme Court has also admittedly held that the provisions of section 43B would not apply to the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of employees contribution. However, as ld AR submitted that the employees contribution to PF and ESI has been paid in some cases

Braham Parkash Yadav, Bhiwadi, Alwar vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

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

ITA 439/JPR/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 May 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Kumar Garg (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a

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

facts in making disallowance u/s 43B rws Sec 36(1)(va) of the contribution of PF & ESI belated in terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Act of Rs. 2 Braham Parkash Yadav 10,93,988/- and the ld. CIT(A) Faceless also erred in confirming the said addition ... will be applicable to the issue in the instant appeal also. It is also clear that the scope of Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are different and thus, there is no question of reading both provisions together to consider as to whether the taxpayer is entitled to deduction

Sodhani Sweet Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 383/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 May 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Khandelwal (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

1) on account of assessee’s failure to pay the employee’s contribution of PF/ESI within the prescribed due dates as per Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the order issued U/s 154 of the IT Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before ... contribution to the PF and ESI, not deposited by the appellant 3 Sodhani Sweet Pvt. Ltd. vs.ACIT within the due date as per section 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act, 1961, cannot be allowed and accordingly, he grounds taken by the assessee are dismissed. 5. In the final result

Catwalk Worldwide Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. Direcotr of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

ITA 685/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2019-20 Catwalk Worldwide Acit, Pvt Ltd, Cpc, Bangalore Unit No. 405-408, Tanti A Jogani Industrial Premises, Vs. Jr Boricha Marg, Sitaram Mill Compound, Lower Parel, Maharashtra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccc1276B

For Appellant: Mr. Nimesh Vora & Moksha MehtaFor Respondent: Mr. K. C. Selvamani, CIT DR

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

concerned, undisputedly, the assessee has deposited payment of employee’s contribution on account of PF & ESI after due date prescribed under section 36(1)(va) of the Act but before the due date of filing the return. 8. We have perused the order passed ... Employees' contribution on account of PF deposited after the due date prescribed under the relevant Act by relying upon the provisions contained under section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act having been amended vide Finance Act, 2021 wherein explanation 2 and explanation 5 have been inserted. 9. However