Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.270

Section 143(1)(a) falls under section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 270 (Assessment) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 270 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 143(1)(a) is CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. (321 ITR 508), cited in 1,629 of the 1,112 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 143(1)(a)

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).

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.

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.

Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
366 ITR 408 · 2014 · High Court
519
citing judgments

An employer's delayed remittance of employees' contributions to provident fund (PF) or Employees' State Insurance (ESI) is deductible if the payment is made before the due date for filing the income tax return under section 139(1), applying the provisions of section 43B and notwithstanding section 36(1)(va).

CIT v. Vinay Cements Ltd.
213 CTR 268 · 2007 · Supreme Court
422
citing judgments

Employees' contributions to provident fund and ESI are allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) if deposited by the assessee before the due date for filing the income tax return.

Commissioner of Income-Tax, Udaipur v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sandh Ltd.
35 Taxmann.com 616 · 2013 · High Court
304
citing judgments

No disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(va) or Section 43B for delayed payment of employee's contributions to ESI or PF if these amounts are deposited by the assessee on or before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1). This aligns the treatment of employee contributions with employer contributions for allowability.

319 ITR 306 (SC); CIT v. Vinay Cement Ltd.
84 Taxmann.com 185 · 2017 · Supreme Court
300
citing judgments

Employee and employer contributions towards Provident Fund (PF) and Employees' State Insurance (ESI) are allowable deductions under sections 36(1)(va) and 43B, respectively, if deposited on or before the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1), even if paid after the due date prescribed under the respective welfare legislation.

M/s Mahadev Cold Storage v. Jurisdictional AO
43 Taxmann.com 33 · 2014 · High Court
262
citing judgments

Employees' contributions to welfare funds are an allowable deduction if paid before the due date for filing the income-tax return under section 139(1), even if the payment is made beyond the due date specified by the respective welfare fund Acts, as per the provisions of section 43B.

313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT
34 Taxmann.com 20 · 2013 · High Court
228
citing judgments
616 (Raj.) and 9. CIT v. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P) Ltd.
217 Taxmann 207 · 2013 · High Court
170
citing judgments

Prior to the insertion of Explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, there was an ambiguity regarding the due date for payment of employees' contribution to provident fund and ESI. The ambiguity was whether the due date was as per the respective Acts or the due date for filing the assessee's return of income.

Judgments on Section 143(1)(a)

Muppidathy Sivan Thevar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1639/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

Muppidathy Sivan Thevar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1638/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

Chitra Exports, Meerut vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1256/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36Section 43B

Chitra Exports, Meerut vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1255/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36Section 43B

Amasebail Vyvasaya Seva Sahakari Sangha Limited, Udupi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 537/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh R. Uppin, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 119Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

Navjivan Synthetics Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 97/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Navjivan Synthetics Cit(A), Pvt. Ltd., Nfac Delhi-110011 158/164, Laxmi Bhavan, Vs. Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai- 400 002 Pan: Aaacn137Ok (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ashish Kumar, D.R.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, D.R
Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 43B

Haft Propbuild Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-11(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 8910/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Gayasuddin Ansari, Senior DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 194Section 250

Bholanath Precision Engineering Pvt Ltd, Bhandup, Mumbai vs. CIT(Appeals), CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre

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

ITA 86/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Kavitha Rajagopal () Bholanath Precision Engineering Vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax Pvt Ltd, 11, Kembros Industrial (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Estate, Sonapur Lane, Bhandup, Centre, Delhi Mumbai-400 078 Pan : Aaccb6076G Appellant Respondent

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

Abhay Maruti Todankar, Navi Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Dehi

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

ITA 696/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 194CSection 194DSection 80C

M/S Paper Recycle, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeal), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 694/MUM/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

M/S. Hp Computing and Printing Systems India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 193/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 234B

Parul Technochem LLP, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 245/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jul 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Ms. Ruchika SoganiFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

The Parakode Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Adoor vs. The ITO, Kollam

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

ITA 115/COCH/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Parakode Service Co-Op. The Income Tax Officer Bank Ltd. Ward 4, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Parakode, Adoor Karbala Junction Pathanamthitta 691554 Kollam 691001 Pan – Aaajt1587B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 80ASection 80P

Aroor Co-Op Urban Society Ltd, Kozhikkode vs. ITO, Kozhikkode

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

ITA 188/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shrigeorge George K.And Shrilaxmi Prasad Sahuaroor Co-Operative Urbn Society Dcit, Central Prossing Centre Aroor P.O., Kakkattil 673507 Bangalore Vs.

For Appellant: Shri V.S. Narayanan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80P

The Kalakkodu Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Kollam vs. The ITO, Kollam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the stay petition filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 164/COCH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shrigeorge George K.And Shrilaxmi Prasad Sahu(Assessment Year:2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 32Section 36Section 61Section 80P

M/S Germinda Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-7(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1193/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

M/S Soul Clothing Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 130/SRT/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.130/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S Soul Clothing Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 601-B, A-Wing, International Trade Cpc, Bengaluru (Karnataka) Centre, Ring Road, Surat-395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecm 2927 R (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish R Malpani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar– Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

City Manager Association, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, CPC, Banglore

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

ITA 29/AHD/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad15 Jun 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Ms. Arti N. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, SR-D.R
Section 11Section 11(1)(A)Section 11(2)Section 11(3)(c)Section 111(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143Section 143(1)

Ruchi Soya Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 78/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.78/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18) Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd बिधम/ Cit(A) Ruchi House, Royal Palms, Room No.605, 6Th Floor, Vs. Survey No. 169, Aarey Milk Pratishtha Bhavan, Colony, Near Mayur Nagar, Maharshi Karve Road, Goregaon (E), Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400065. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr2892L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. S. Nagar Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai Dated 26.10.2021 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Pointed Out That There Was A Delay Of Few Days In Filing This Appeal & From A Perusal Of The Reasons Given, It Is Noted That The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 26.10.2021Was Passed During The Period Of Covid-19 & Therefore As Per The Direction Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court, The Limitation Period Of Filing Even Appeal Stands Extended. Therefore, We Are Inclined To Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Admit This Appeal For Adjudication. 3. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of Ld. Cit(A) Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Filed On 30.06.2020 On The Ground That There Was Delay Of 500 Days & Refusing To Condone

For Appellant: Shri S. S. NagarFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane (DR)
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)

M/S. Super Tiles & Marbles Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1950/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A