“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)

A September Home Lifestyle Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 40/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Due Date Of Deposit As Mentioned In Relevant Act Despite The Fact That The Amount Was Deposited In The Relevant Fund Before Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Return Under Income Tax Act, 1961.’’

For Appellant: Shri Mudit Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena, Addl. CIT-DR

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

that the ld CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of Rs.3,29,795/- in view of introduction of explanations to the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made by Finance Bill 2021 which should be allowed. 3.4 On the other hand ... 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

Swastic Oil Industries, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle -7, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 35/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 34 & 35/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s. Swastic Oil Industries F-5-F8, Industrial Area Newai, Tonk 304 021 cuke Vs. The ACIT Circle-7 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJFS 8180 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Devang Gargieya, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT lquokbZ

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

thus made disallowance by holding that the employees contribution towards PF/ESI is governed by the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24(x) of the Act and not by the provisions of Section 43B of the Act. 2.2 In first appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the action ... 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

Swastic Oil Industires, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle -7, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 34/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 May 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

Dynasty Modular Furnitures Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 99/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 May 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

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

whether the addition made by the AO on account of employees contribution to ESI and PF by invoking the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24(x) of the Act was correct or not. (ii) The claim of the appellant as per the written submission that ... 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

Vijay Bag Singh Rajpurohit, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 591/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailvijay Bag Singh Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Rajpurohit Plot No. 4, Income Tax, Vikas Bunglow Behind Cpc Bengaluru Bahari Petrol Pump, 560100 Sion, Trombay Road Chembur, Mumbai 400071 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Adqpr7848L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Vipul Shriyan Respondent By : Vranda U Matkari Date Of Hearing 27.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi Dated 27.12.2022 For A.Y. 2020-21. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Commissioner Of Income Appeals National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Ld Cit(A)) Erred In Upholding Disallowance Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1001 (The Act) By Cpc, Bengaluru Under Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Act In Respect Of Employees Contribution Made To The Provided Fund & Other Funds Which Was Paid After The Due Date Prescribed Under The Respective Law But Before The End Of The Financial Year & Due Date Of Filling Return Of Income Is Covered U/S 430 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cita Erred In Noting That The Hearing Notices Were Remained Uncompiled While The Appellant Had Uploaded Request For Adjournment Against Notice Dated

For Appellant: Vipul ShriyanFor Respondent: Vranda U Matkari

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 430Section 44A

case and in law the Commissioner of Income Appeals National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Ld CIT(A)) erred in upholding disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Income tax Act, 1001 (the Act) by CPC, Bengaluru under intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act in respect of employees contribution made

M/S Jasani India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

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

ITA 546/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailm/S Jasani India Private Vs. National E-Assessment Limited, Hw 6010, Tower Centre-Delhi, H,6Th Floor, Bharat Delhi Diamond Bourse, Bkc, Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0081C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sanket Shah Respondent By : Vranda U Matkari Date Of Hearing 27.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi Dated 10.02.2023 For A.Y. 2020-21. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. In Not Holding That The Entire Processing Was Done Without Following The Method Prescribed U/S 143(1) & That The Adjustments Made Were Beyond The Scope Of That Section. 2. In Asking The Ao To Verify Whether Or Not Rs.9,008 Of Penalty Was Compensatory In Nature - Whereas It Was Already Pleaded That This Had Been Offered To Tax. 3. In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.516,812 Being Contribution To Pf By Merely Stating That The Judgment Of The Supreme Court In Checkmate Securities P Ltd Applied To The Case-Without Appreciating The Submissions That There Was No Delay In The Making Of These Contributions.”

For Appellant: Sanket ShahFor Respondent: Vranda U Matkari

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

P a g e | 1 M/s Jasani india Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NFAC IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH

Newage Fire Protection Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals. National Faceless Appeal, Mumbai

ITA 487/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

said amount of contribution to ESIC and PF is not paid within due date u/s. 36 (1) (va) although the amendment made in section 36 (1)(va) by Finance Act 21 is prospective in nature and cannot apply retrospectively. 2. The learned CIT (Appeal) has erred in confirming addition made ... making total addition of Rs.4,30,540/- & Rs.3,38,093/- for A.Y. 2018-19 & 2019-20 respectively on account of disallowance under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act on account of delay in depositing employees’ contribution towards Provident Fund (PF), Employee’s State

Newage Fire Protection Engineers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeas National Faceless Appeal, Mumbai

ITA 486/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Sila Solutions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC Bangalore, Mumbai

ITA 813/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Sila Solutions Pvt. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax-Cpc, 3Rd Floor, A-301, Bangalore, Neelam Centre, Karnataka – 560 500 Vs. Baburao Pendharkar Marg, Glaxo, Worli, Mumbai City– 400 030 Pan: Aancs3675D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mandar Vaidya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, D.R

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

assessee company has made delayed payment of employees’ contribution on account of PF & ESIC contribution after due date prescribed under the Act under section 36(1)(va) of the Act but certainly before the due date of filing the return. 6. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee company challenging ... contribution on account of PF & ESIC 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

Angadpal Industries Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

ITA 273/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, D.R

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

delayed payment of employees’ contribution towards Provident Fund (PF) & Employee’s State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) to the tune of Rs.5,35,687/- under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act, by the Central Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru 3 M/s. Angadpal Industries Pvt. Ltd. [Assessing ... assessee company has made delayed payment of employees’ contribution on account of PF & ESIC contribution after due date prescribed under the Act under section 36(1)(va) of the Act but certainly before the due date of filing the return. 6. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee company challenging

Shamim Akhtar Abdul Khaliq Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 25(1) (2) CPC, Mumbai

ITA 152/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Makhija, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, D.R

Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

year under consideration, deposited after due date prescribed under the PF/ESIC Act and thereby made the addition of Rs.24,12,228/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). 3. Thereafter the assessee filed rectification application under section 154 of the Act before ... contribution on account of PF & ESIC 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

Newage Fire Protection Industries Pvt .Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

ITA 2141/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, D.R

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

Income as per section 43 8 but paid after the due date of the respective Acts. 2. The legislative amendments incorporated in section 36(1) (va) and 438 of the act by the Finance Act 2021 by inserting explanation 2 and explanation 5 to the respective provisions are prospective ... assessee company has made delayed payment of employees’ contribution on account of PF & ESIC contribution after due date prescribed under the Act under section 36(1)(va) of the Act but certainly before the due date of filing the return. 6. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee company challenging

Brij Gopal Construction Co. P.Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, New Delhi

In the result, we see no infirmity in the judgment of the High Court

ITA 2123/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

adjudicating the M/S. Brij Gopal Construction Company Pvt. Ltd disallowance of Rs. 8,17,250/- made under section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of 21,0 the Act 4 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -24, Delhi has also erred both

Priyanka Tyagi, Raipur vs. Income Tax Offficer-2(2), Bilaspur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 18/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 15 & 16/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Richhpal Singh Tyagi 865, Near Kargil Chowk Sunder Nagar, Raipur (C.G)-492 001 Pan : Admpt5049D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 17/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deepak Tyagi 865, Near Kargil Chowk Sunder Nagar, Raipur (C.G)-492 001 Pan : Ahnpt2650H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-4(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)

towards ESI & EPF deposited by the assessee beyond the “due date” prescribed under the said respective employee welfare acts would by virtue of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 2(24)(x) of the Act constitute the income of the assessee. The Hon’ble Apex Court ... hereinabove had held as under: “Analysis and Conclusions 30. The factual narration reveals two diametrically opposed views in regard to the interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions

Deepak Tyagi, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle4(1), Raipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 17/RPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)

Richhpal Singh Tyagi, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1), Bilaspur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 16/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)

Richhpal Singh Tyagi, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1), Bilaspur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 15/RPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)

Honourable Packaging P Ltd, Dhar vs. The DCIT 1(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 348/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of The Income Tax Return & Can It Be Disallowed In The 143(1).

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

audit report regarding inadmissibility of claim with respect to contributions received from the employees for various funds as referred to in section 36(1)(va) of the Act, it would be useful to reproduce section 143(1) of the Act, which reads as under: Assessment. 143. (1) Where a return ... 36(1)(va) of the Act, does not require the auditor to make any specific observation regarding admissibility of the amount under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. At the same time, when we observe several other parts of the tax audit report viz. serial number 21(b)- amounts

Anil Prakash Tyagi, Jabapur vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 342/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of The Income Tax Return & Can It Be Disallowed In The Intimation Passed U/S. 143(1) Intimation.

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

adjusting and making an arbitrary addition of Rs.36,76,118/- on account of payment of PF & ESIC beyond the due date as per section 36(1)(va). 3. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in not appreciating that the addition could not have been made ... audit report regarding inadmissibility of claim with respect to contributions received from the employees for various funds as referred to in section 36(1)(va) of the Act, it would be useful to reproduce section 143(1) of the Act, which reads as under: Assessment. 143. (1) Where a return

Sangita Khanna, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 5(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 547/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 2(24)(x)Section 34Section 36Section 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