← 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)

Prisma, Moradabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Moradabad

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

ITA 1197/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

For Appellant: N o n e
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Bang/2021 and Indian Geotechnical Services Vs. ACIT ITA. No. 622/Del/2018 delivered after consideration of the insertion of explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act 2021 employer’s contribution to PF and ESI paid on or before the due date of filing of ITR under section ... deposited before the due date of filing the return. The issue of whether the employees’ contribution is allowable expenditure under section 36(1)(va) of the Act if it is paid beyond the due date specified under PF/ESI Act came up befor the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

Navodia Times Private Limited, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is

ITA 192/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 250oSection 36

year and Rs.71,818/- on 18.04.2018 related to EPF payable. The assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with explanation to section 36(1)(va) and 43B and confirmed the addition amount of Rs.4,87,990/- (Rs.4,16,169/- (+) Rs.71,818/-). Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before ... taken the following grounds on basis of the explanation of section 36(1)(va) and 43B which was observed in retrospectively and request for application in legal way. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld.AO. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. The assessee was called

Bhargavi Hotels and Resorts Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 419/JPR/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jan 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Ld. Cit (A). However, The Ld. Cit (A) Dismissed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee & Consequently The Assessee Has Preferred The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal On The Grounds Mentioned Hereunder :-

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Prakash Meena (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

following reporting under clause 20(b) of Form 3 CD. “Details of contributions received from employees for various funds as referred to in section 36(1)(va) : b Details of contributions received from employees for various funds as referred to in section 36(1)(va): S.No. Nature of fund ... column no. 5. Thus on the basis of non reporting, the CPC added the entire amount under section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) thereby assuming that no amount was deposited. But as per factual position the amount as mentioned in Column no. 3 was deposited

G S Build Estate P. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-6(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 377/JPR/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jan 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Return & By Not Following The Binding Decision Of Jurisdictional High Court Of Rajasthan That If The Employees Contribution Is Deposited Before Due Date, No Disallowance Could Be Made U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monish Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

ground No. (1), the ld. CIT(A) is further wrong and has erred in law in holding that explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(va) introduced by Finance Act, 2021 is prospective in nature and therefore disallowance confirmed by ld. CIT(A) on this account is wrong ... 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

Indera Garments Pvt. Ltd, Rourkela vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalure

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 172/CTK/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.171 & 172/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2022 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2018-2019 & 2019 2019 & 2019-2020 Indera Garments Pvt Ltd., Indera Garments Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Income Tax Dcit, Cpc, Income Tax Main Main Road, Road, Rourkela, Rourkela, Department, Bangalore Department, Bangalore Sundargarh Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaaci 9173 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal,Ar Pawan Kumar Agarwal,Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/01 01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/01 /01/2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal,ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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. Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd(supra ... interest of justice. This direction is being given because ld AR has submitted that as the amount is not allowable under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and same is also not covered under section 43B of the Act, the amount of delayed contribution

Indera Garments Pvt. Ltd, Rourkela vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalure

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 171/CTK/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.171 & 172/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2022 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2018-2019 & 2019 2019 & 2019-2020 Indera Garments Pvt Ltd., Indera Garments Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Income Tax Dcit, Cpc, Income Tax Main Main Road, Road, Rourkela, Rourkela, Department, Bangalore Department, Bangalore Sundargarh Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaaci 9173 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal,Ar Pawan Kumar Agarwal,Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/01 01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/01 /01/2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal,ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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. Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd(supra ... interest of justice. This direction is being given because ld AR has submitted that as the amount is not allowable under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and same is also not covered under section 43B of the Act, the amount of delayed contribution

Teejay India Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Dc/Ac 4(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 152/VIZ/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri Darpan Kirpalani CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 92C

proposed to disallow an amount of Rs. 21,75,577/- on account of delayed payment of PF & ESI as per the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The Ld. AO accordingly passed draft assessment order on 29/11/2019. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Korba vs. M/S. Dee Vee Project Ltd., Korba

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed/partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 69/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.69/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle, Korba (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Dee Vee Project Ltd. First Floor, Vikas Complex, P.H. Road, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Aaecd4619B ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Chand Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

Checkmate Services P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Civil Appeal No.2833 of 2016 dated 12.10.2022. Observing, that by virtue of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act, the employee’s share of contributions towards ESI & EPF which were deposited by the assessee employer beyond ... Korba (C.G.) Vs. M/s. Dee Vee Project Ltd. 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

Shri Jora Ram Vishnoi, Jodhpur vs. ADIT, CPC, ITO, Ward-3(1), Bengaluru / Jodhpur

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

ITA 9/JODH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

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

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. Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Sr. DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities

Shri Jora Ram Vishnoi, Jodhpur vs. ADIT, CPC, ITO, Ward-3(1), Bengaluru / Jodhpur

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

ITA 10/JODH/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

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

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. Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Sr. DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities

M/S. A. Infrastructure Ltd., Bhilwara vs. DCIT, CPC/ ACIT, Circle, Circle- Bhilwara, Bangalore / Bhilwara

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

ITA 166/JODH/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Jan 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

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

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. Now the assessee is in appeal. 5. During the course of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee submits that

M/S. A. Infrastructure Ltd., Bhilwara vs. DCIT, CPC/ ACIT, Circlecit, Circle- Bhilwara, Bangalore / Bhilwara

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

ITA 165/JODH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

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

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. Now the assessee is in appeal. 5. During the course of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee submits that

M/S. A. Infrastructure Ltd., Bhilwara vs. DCIT, CPC/ ACIT, Circlecit, Circle- Bhilwara, Bangalore / Bhilwara

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

ITA 164/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

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

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. Now the assessee is in appeal. 5. During the course of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee submits that

Randhir Rana, Ballabhgarh vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Faridabad

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 2660/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2023AY 2020-21
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year : 2020

Krishna Prakashan Media Pvt Ltd, Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO, Ward 1(1)(3), Uttar Pradesh

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 2168/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Assessment Year : 2019-20 Krishna Prakashan Media Vs. Ito Pvt. Ltd., Ward – 1(1)(3), 11, Krishna House Uttar Pradesh Shivaji Road Meerut, Meerut-250 001 Pan No. Aaack 9668 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By --None-- Revenue By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 15.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.01.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi, No. Dated 01.08.2022 In Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1044403913(1), Relating To The A.Y. 2019-20 Passed Under Section 250 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under:- Krishna Prakashan Media Pvt. Ltd Vs. Ito 2

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year : 2019

Global Green Company Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1931/DEL/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2002-03

Section 37(1)

that unless employee’s contribution to PF is remitted 8 | P a g e AY: 2002-03 within the due date prescribed under section 36(1)(va) of the Act, no deduction can be allowed. 16. In view of the aforesaid, we remit the issue to the Assessing Officer

Fil India Business & Research Services P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Dc, Circle-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1358/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Chandra Mohan Gargfil India Business & Vs. Dc Research Services P. Ltd., Circle – 7(1) Private Studio – New Delhi Ncr/Ac/Ps/00/010B, Ground Floor, Worldmark 1, Asset Area 11, Aerocity, Hospitality District, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi-110 002 Pan : Aabcf 1572 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri K. M. Gupta, Adv. Shri Rishabh Malhotra, A.R. & Shri Bhavya Gupta, C.A. Revenue By Shri Amaresh Singh, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.01.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

duly deposited before the due date of filing the return under section 139(1) of the Act and thus eligible for deduction under section 36(1)(va) read with section 43B of the Act. 2.1 The Ld. AO/ Ld. DRP erred in not appreciating the fact that initially ... CBDT’) vide Circular No. 22/2015 dated 17 December 2015. 2.6 The Ld. AO/ Ld. DRP erred in construing that the Explanations inserted in sections 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act vide Finance Act, 2021 are clarificatory in nature and are applicable' retrospectively. 3. The Ld. AO erred

Mgi Infra Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-16(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is 11

ITA 6500/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhary

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Jeetender Chand
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “E”: DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI NARENDER KUMAR

Yamazen Machinery Tools India P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-27(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 582/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 192Section 195Section 40Section 9

contribution to Provident Fund (PF) within the due date prescribed under the PF Act held that the assessee has violated the provisions of section 36(1)(va) and Accordingly, disallowed the expenditure. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 14. We have considered rival submissions

Shri Dharmendra Hirubhai Patel, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangluru, Surat

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

ITA 139/SRT/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.139/Srt/2021 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Dharmendra Hirubhai Patel, Vs. The Dcit, Cpc, Motawada Steet, At & Po. Hazira, Bangluru. Tal: Choryasi, Surat – 394270. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amhpp6575A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Deven Kapadia, Ar Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/01/2023 10/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 41Section 43Section 43B

wherein it was held as follows: “30Analysis and Conclusions 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 ... 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, w.e.f. 01-04-1988. Through the same amendment, by Section 3(b), Section 2(24) – which defines various