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)

Ganeshan Purushothaman Achari, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(4), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 148/RPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 146 To 148/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 To 2019-20 Ganeshan Puroshothaman Achari 116, Friends Arcade, Shastri Nagar, G.E. Road, Supela, Bhilai (C.G.) Pan : Achpa6510E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Cpc, Bengaluru. ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

Ganeshan Purushothaman Achari, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(4), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 147/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 146 To 148/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 To 2019-20 Ganeshan Puroshothaman Achari 116, Friends Arcade, Shastri Nagar, G.E. Road, Supela, Bhilai (C.G.) Pan : Achpa6510E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Cpc, Bengaluru. ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

Ganeshan Purushothaman Achari, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(4), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 146/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 146 To 148/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 To 2019-20 Ganeshan Puroshothaman Achari 116, Friends Arcade, Shastri Nagar, G.E. Road, Supela, Bhilai (C.G.) Pan : Achpa6510E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Cpc, Bengaluru. ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

The ACIT 4(1), Indore vs. Durgesh Shukla, Indore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being not maintainable due to low tax effect

ITA 410/IND/2022[018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Mar 2023

Bench: SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Sudhakar Rao Dondapati, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-13(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 129/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं/Ita No. 129/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sudhakar Rao Dondapati, Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Vs. Ward-13(3), [Pan No. Aeupr8022H] Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri T. Balaji, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख /Date Of Hearing: 21/03/2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख /Pronouncement On: 21/03/2023

For Appellant: Shri T. Balaji, ARFor Respondent: Shri Waseem UR Rehman, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

A.C.I.T., Circle-2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Descon Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 1648/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1648/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Descon Ltd. Tax – Circle-2(1), Kolkata Vs Plot No. X -1,2,3, Block-Ep, Sector V Salt Lake City Kolkata - 700091 [Pan : Aaacd9410G] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25/01/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: This Is The Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 16, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 26/03/2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.56,07,000/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Rent & Connectivity Charges As Because The Assessee Follows The Mercantile Basis Of Accounting System & The Expenses Should Be Recorded As & When It Arises. 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.33,82,434/- Made By The Ao On Account Of The Employees Contribution To Pf/Esi As Because It Violates The Provision Of Sec.36(1)(Va) Read With Sec 2(24)(X) Of The It Act & It Contradicts The Board'S Circular No. 22/2015 Dated 17.12.2015, Para No. 5 Where It Is Clarified That "This Circular Does Not Apply To Claim Of Deduction Relating To Employee'S Contribution To Welfare Fund Which Are Governed By Sec.36(1)(Va) Of The Act".

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 68

Khyber Industries Private Limited, Srinagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, Srinagar

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

ITA 31/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 250oSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Ernst & Young Merchant Banking Services LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax Central Processing Bangalore, Bangalore

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

ITA 2333/MUM/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalernst & Young Merchant Banking Services Llp 16Th Floor, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028. Pan: Aahfe5514C ...... Appellant Vs. Adit, Cpc, Bangalore-560500. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 36(1)

Devraj Beharnani, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, C-3, Jodhpur/ CPC, Bengaluru, Jodhpur

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

ITA 149/JODH/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Mar 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad149/Jodh/2022 (Assessment Year- 2020-21) Shri Devraj Beharnani Vs The Acit Atmaram Building Circle-3 Outside Sojati Gate Jodhpur Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adtpb 0305 M

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

Aroma Aromatics & Flavours, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-28(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1634/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1634/Del/2020 (A.Y 2017-18)

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

M/S Beltex Rubber India, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 1 (1), Jalandhar

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

ITA 9/ASR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

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

Section 143(1)Section 250o

M/S Beltex Rubber India, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward - 1 (1), Jalandhar

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

ITA 8/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 143(1)Section 250o

Rajmahal Coal Mining Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 7(2), Kolkaa, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 44/KOL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 44/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Rajmahal Coal Mining Limited,..................Appellant Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Camac Street, Kolkata-700017 [Pan: Aafcr8453E] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-7(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

Section 36(1)(va)

M/S Capital Tours(India) Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 507/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.507/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Capital Tours (India) Pvt. Ltd..............................………...…..…Appellant 1, J Embassy Building, 4, Shakepeare Sarani, Kolkata- 700 071. [Pan: Aabcc2821K] Vs. Ito, Ward-12(1), Kolkata......................................................…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 17, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 16, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.06.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-17, Kolkata U/S 250 Confirming The Additions & Disallowances Made By Learned Assessing Officer Is Wrong In The Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. That The Ld. Cit (Appeals) - 17, Kolkata Erred In Law As Well As On Facts Of The Case By Confirming The Disallowance Of Employee'S Contribution For

Section 14ASection 2(24)Section 250Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Incedo Technology Solutions Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle -10(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 460/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2017-18
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Golfgreen Infra Private Limited, Delhi vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 260/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Itr U/S 139(1)And The Amendment As Made In The Section By Finance Bill 2020 Is Effective From A.Y 2020-21 .

For Appellant: Ms. Nivedita, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 43B

National Housing Bank, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range-6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1242/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2019-20
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1 (1), Dibrugarh vs. Banamalie Tea Estate, Dibrugarh

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands allowed

ITA 46/GTY/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati15 Mar 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargi.T.A. No.46/Gty/2022 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ito, Ward-1(1), Dibrugarh..…...…….....…..................….…… Appellant Vs. Banamalie Tea Estate……....……........………..…...…..…..... Respondent 4Th Floor, Pushkara House, Natun Gaon, Nh-37, Dibrugarh, Assam-786008. [Pan: Aabfb5352K] Appearances By: Shri Aakash Agarwal, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 15, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 15, 2023

Section 2Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Sihw Bachan Singh, Chirang vs. CIT (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 12/GTY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati15 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargi.T.A. No.12/Gty/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shiw Bachan Singh……...……......…..........…..................….…… Appellant Brpl Main Gate, Dhaligaon, Assam-783385. [Pan: Axlps2160F] Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Bongaigaon.………....……........…...…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 15, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 15, 2023

Section 2Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Banshidhar Sewbhagovan & Co., Dibrugarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Dibrugarh

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

ITA 63/GTY/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati15 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No.63/Gty/2021 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Banshidhar Sewbhagovan & Co, Dibrugarh......................……….……Appellant 5Th Floor, Juction Mall, R.K.B. Path, Dibrugarh, Assam- 786001. [Pan: Aadfb7460J] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Dibrugarh ……..…............…….......................…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 02, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 15, 2023 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2019-20 Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 22.09.2021 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Assessing Officer Dated 01.05.2020. 2. The Case Was Called For. None Appeared For The Assessee. In The Past, Various Notices Have Been Served Through Rpad But There Is No Compliance. We, Therefore, Deem It Fit To Hear This Appeal With The Assistance Of Ld. Dr & The Available Records. 3. From The Perusal Of The Grounds Of Appeal, The Grievance Of The Assessee Is Two-Fold. Firstly, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Disallowance U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S 2(24)(X) Of The Act For The Delay Of

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)