← 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)

Umed Singh, New Delhi vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Ward 14(1), Pune, Range Code 58, Dgit (Investigation)

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

ITA 7/PUN/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Oct 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Jain (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar (Virtual)
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Dinesh Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-2, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 481/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyaldinesh Kumar Agarwal, Prime Rockwool, 500 Rajeev Gandhi Nagar 324005 Pan No.: Abkpa 4039Q ...... Appellant

For Appellant: Mr. Devang Gargieya, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

adjustment u/s. 143(1) on DT. 06.02.2020 by holding that the employee's contribution towards PF/ESI is governed by the provisions of section 36(1) (va) of the Act. The assessee being aggrieved preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) who in turn dismissed the appeal of the assessee

Hyderabad Yadgiri Tollway Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT-1, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1332/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43A

having ben deposited on or before due date of filing of returns, same could not be disallowed under section 43B or under section 36(1)(va); SLP dismissed} Total 70,84,35,131 7.2 It is evident from the above reply that the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.28

Checkmate Facility & Electronic Solution Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 234/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr.DR
Section 244ASection 250

taxmann.com 178 (SC) holding that delayed payment of ESI & PF towards employees’ contribution is not allowable in terms of provisions of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. She fairly admitted the issue to be covered against the assessee. In the light of the admission of the Ld. Counsel

Unimed Technologies Limited, Halol vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the Departmental appeal is dismissed for AY 2017-18

ITA 1425/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 263

held that delayed deposits of employees’ contributions, even by a single day, are not allowable under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Accordingly, a disallowance of Rs. 7,45,642/- was made and added back to the total income. The Assessing Officer also examined the claim of software expenses ... deleted and Ground No. 2 was allowed. In respect of Ground No. 3, concerning the disallowance of Rs. 7,45,642/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to provident fund, the CIT(Appeals) observed that the assessee had deposited

Assistant Commissioner of Incometax, Race Course, Vadodara vs. Unimed Technologies Limited, Halol Panchmahal

In the result, the Departmental appeal is dismissed for AY 2017-18

ITA 1423/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 263

held that delayed deposits of employees’ contributions, even by a single day, are not allowable under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Accordingly, a disallowance of Rs. 7,45,642/- was made and added back to the total income. The Assessing Officer also examined the claim of software expenses ... deleted and Ground No. 2 was allowed. In respect of Ground No. 3, concerning the disallowance of Rs. 7,45,642/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to provident fund, the CIT(Appeals) observed that the assessee had deposited

Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department vs. True Value Homes (India) Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1213/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. B.Ramakrishnan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T
Section 142(1)Section 142ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 44ASection 69

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एबी ट

M/S Nihal Projects, Kachchh vs. ITO Ward 2, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

ITA 929/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234ASection 274Section 43BSection 68

I.T.A Nos. 929/Rjt/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 M/s. Nihal Projects (1). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the disallowance

Om Prakash Singh, Lucknow vs. The Income Tax Officer -1(4), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 777/LKW/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatom Prakash Singh V. The Income Tax Officer- J-166 Opp City School 1(4), Lucknow Raibareily Road, South City Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001. Lucknow-226001. Pan:Aidps7478M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 27 10 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 10 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Swaran Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 11.02.2023, in which the claim of Employees Contribution towards ESI and EPF of Rs. 5,70,460/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Income tax Act, 1961 has been wrongly disallowed. The appellant had deposited Employees contribution towards State Insurance and provident Fund

Mahipal Yadav -Through Sunita (L/H)., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 43(1), New Delhi

In the result, impugned order is modified to the extent of disallowance made u/s

ITA 1659/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.1659/िद"ी/2025 (िन.व. 2018-19) Mahipal Yadav, Through Sunita Legal Heir, C/O Ca M.R Sahu, House No. 651, 1St Floor, Sector-10A, Nr. G.D Goenka Public School, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Gurgaon, Haryana 122001 Pan: Abypy-4143-R बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, R. No. 1709, 17Th Floor, E-2, Block Civic Centre, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant By : Shri M. R Sahu, Chartered Accountant "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 27/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), 15, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 31.01.2025, For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Shri M. R Sahu, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Narrating Facts Of The Case Submitted That The Addition Was Made By The Cpc U/S.143(1) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Disallowing Assessee’S Claim U/S.23(1)(Va) Of The Act For Contribution Made Towards To Provident Fund (Pf) &

For Appellant: Shri M. R Sahu, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 23(1)(va)Section 36(1)(va)

decision in “Checkmate Services Private Limited” (Supra), whereby the Supreme Court held that the deduction of the employees’ share can be allowed under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act, only if such share was deposited before the time limit under the respective statutes and not before

Security Printing and Mintingcorporation of India Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 22(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1665/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Y.K. Meghan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 234Section 40ASection 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN

Kamakshi Jute Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 69/KOL/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

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

intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act has held that if the employees’ contribution is not deposited as per the mandate of section 36(1)(va) of the Act, the deduction of the same would not be available to the assessee. Hence, following the decision of the coordinate Bench, this

Dipak Kumar Hazra, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward 47(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1135/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 43B

I.T.A. No.: 1135/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dipak Kumar Hazra. deposited on or before the due date as per the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who examined the facts

Ucal Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai-3, Chennai

ITA 1018/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

income includes any sum received by the assessee from his employees as contributions to any Provident Fund and ESI. As per section 36(1)(va), the same is allowable only if such sum is credited by the assessee to the employee's account in the relevant fund or funds ... filing of the return of income u/s.139(1) :-10-: ITA. No.:1018/Chny/2025 of the Act, no disallowance was warranted in terms of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. 16. The Ld.AR brought to our notice that the Assessing Officer had issued the Show Cause Notice

Delhi Duty Free Services Private Limted, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of Revenue in decided as follows:

ITA 69/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 135Section 80Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘A’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI

Delhi Duty Free Services Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-13, Delhi

In the result, appeals of Revenue in decided as follows:

ITA 68/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 135Section 80Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘A’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI

Delhi Duty Free Services Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-13, Delhi

In the result, appeals of Revenue in decided as follows:

ITA 67/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 135Section 80Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘A’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI

Ganganager Vehicles Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 991/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pratap Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘B’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN

Ganganagar Vehicles Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-10(1), Delhi

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 990/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pratap Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘B’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN

Alankit Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2), Delhi

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

ITA 3207/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

Income Tax (Appeals) ["CIT(A)"] has erred in law and on facts in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 70,67,205/- made under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of employees' contribution to PF/ESI. 3) That the learned CJT(A) has further erred in ignoring the consistent ... judicial position that the due date for deposit of employee contributions under Section 36(1)(va) should be reckoned with reference to the actual date of disbursement of salary and not the month to which the salary pertains. 4) That the learned authorities below have erred in not appreciating that