Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: ss.29, 30, 31, 32

Section 36(1)(va) falls under section 36 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 29 (Deductions related to employee welfare), section 30 (Deduction on certain premium), section 31 (Deduction for bad debt and provision for bad and doubtful debt) and section 32 (Other deductions) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 29 of the 2025 ActRead section 30 of the 2025 ActRead section 31 of the 2025 ActRead section 32 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 36(1)(va) is CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. (321 ITR 508), cited in 1,629 of the 6,054 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

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.

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. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
43 Taxmann.com 411 · 2014 · High Court
524
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund, ESI, and other welfare funds, if deposited by the due date for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), are allowable as a deduction and cannot be disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) or Section 43B, even if deposited after the due date prescribed by the respective welfare Acts.

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. Bharat Hotels Ltd.
410 ITR 417 · 2019 · High Court
486
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI, if paid beyond the due date prescribed by the respective welfare fund statutes, are not allowed as a deduction under the Income Tax Act.

CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd.
350 ITR 327 · 2013 · High Court
425
citing judgments

Deduction for employee contributions to EPF/ESI is allowable under section 43B if paid before the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1), irrespective of the due dates under the respective welfare fund statutes.

Judgments on Section 36(1)(va)

B and M Chemicals Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.D.I.T., C.P.C., Bengaluru, Bangalore

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

ITA 162/KOL/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 May 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

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

M/S. Sainik Intelligence & Security Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst Director of Income Tax, Centralised Processing Centre, Bangalore

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

ITA 255/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Sainik Intelligence & Security Pvt. Asst. Dit, Centralized Processing Ltd. Centre, Bangalore Shoop 25, Suraj Plaza, Chandulal Wadi, Vs. Station Road, Bhayander (W), Thane-401 101 Pan/Gir No. Aaics 5302 E (Appellant) : (Respondent) : Ms. Dinkle Haria Assessee By Revenue By : Shri A. N. Bhalekar : 02.05.2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 04.05.2023

For Respondent: Shri A. N. Bhalekar
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

M/S Ready Roti India Pvt. Ltd., F-28, Riico Industrial Area, Sare Khurd, Alwar vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

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

ITA 94/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. RuniPal, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Ravi Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 7, Jaipur

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

ITA 72/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Itr. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts Of Confirming The Addition Of Rs.22,995/- Being Double Addition Of Speculative Income.’’

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Bhargava, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl.CIT
Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 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

M/S. Mtr Maiya'S, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 95/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Suresh Rao, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

Purple Medical Solutions Pvt. Ltd [Successor of Miv Therapeutics (India) Pvt. Ltd], Mulund vs. Pr. CIT-1, Surat

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

ITA 186/SRT/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Purple Medical Solutions Private Limited Pr.C.I.T. (Successor Of Miv Therapeutics (India) Surat-1, Vs. Pvt. Ltd.) Surat. 615/616 Avior, Nirmal Galaxy, Lbs Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400080. Pan: Aaecp 3664 L Appellant Respondednt

Section 254(1)Section 263Section 36Section 43B

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

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

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

Sahebrao Damu Shewale, Nashik vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 259/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Pune01 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripotesahebrao Damu Shewale, Vs The Dcit, Cpc. 11, Abhijit Pak B, Kamal Nagar, Kamatwade Cidco, Nashik. Pan: Aspps 6283 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri M.G. Jasnani, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/05/2023 O R D E R Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 17.01.2023 For A.Y.2018-19, Emanating From Assessment Order Of Asst. Director Of Income Tax (Cpc), Dated 08.01.2020. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld.Cit(A) Nfac, Delhi Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.67,94,757/- Made By The Ld.Dcit, Cpc, Bengaluru On Account Of Employees Contribution Of Pf & Esi U/S. 36(10(Va). 2. The Appellant Contends That Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Law & In Facts In Confirming Addition Amounting To Sahebrao Damu Shewale Rs.67,94,757/- Made U/S 143(1) Of Ita, 1961 On The Basis Of Disclosure In Tax Audit Report & Thereby Erred In Not Appreciating That Such Disallowance Is Beyond The Scope Of Provisions Of S.143(1) Of Ita, 1961. 3. Appellant Craves Leave To Add/Alter/Delete/ Modify, All/Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani, DR
Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Sri. Krishnaswamy Venkata Raman, Bangalore vs. Asst. Director of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 106/BANG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri R.E. Balasubramniyan, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(vi)Section 37Section 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)

Icomm Tele Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA No.130/Hyd/2023 for the A

ITA 60/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Icomm Tele Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA No.130/Hyd/2023 for the A

ITA 130/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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

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)

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)

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)

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)