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)

Sahrudaya Health Care (Kurnool) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 596/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Sahrudaya Health Care Vs. The Income Tax Officer, (Kurnool), Private Limited, Ward 3 (1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aawcs3735M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Kumar Adithya. Date Of Hearing: 20.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.12.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Adithya
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

I-Security Services, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1003/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

Concentrix Daksh Services India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle 4(2), Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 809/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi20 Dec 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Kamal Sahwney, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144

Welcare Hospital, Sa Road, Vyttila vs. Ass. Director of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle (1), Kochi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 217/COCH/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S. Automac Diesels, Huballi vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 338/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Rajam Polypacks Limited, Rajam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Srikakulam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 258/VIZ/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.258/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Rajam Polypacks Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer Ponduru Road Ward-2 Rajam Srikakulam [Pan : Aabcr0489G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Ya Rao, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri On Hari Prasad Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/ 1036317185(1) Dated 12.10.2021 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018- 19. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1. The Order Passed By Learned Commissioner (Appeals), Dated 12.10.2021 Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.56,448/- & Rs.2,53,947/- By Invoking Provisions Of Sec.36(1A) R.W.S. 43(B) Of I.T.Act Is Illegal & Unjust After Relying On The Amendment Brought By Finance Act, 2021 To Sec.36(5A) R.W.S. (43B).

For Appellant: Shri YA Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri ON Hari Prasad Rao, DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 36

Crawley & Ray Founders & Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. DCIT, CPC, Banlaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 246/KOL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri R. N. Mallick, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Grip Strapping Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 249/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

M/S Veto Switchgears and Cables Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 2634/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalm/S Veto Switchgears Vs. Acit, 13(3)(2) & Cables Limited Room No. 229, 2 Nd Floor, 4Th Floor, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharashtra Maharishi Karve Road, 400 058 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccv4990K Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Vranda U Matkarni
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

Andhra Pradesh Power Genration Corporation Limited, Vijayawada vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 252/VIZ/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sri M. ChandramouleswaraFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

M/S. Garuda Security Services, Bangalore vs. ITO, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1052/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1051 & 1052/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra Chakravarthy, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

M/S. Garuda Security Services, Bangalore vs. ITO, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1051/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1051 & 1052/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra Chakravarthy, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nagpur vs. Sms Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 24/NAG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sanket BhattadFor Respondent: Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

Farida Shoes Private Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 849/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.849/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-2020 M/S. Farida Shoes Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner No. 151/4, Mount Poonamallee Road, Of Income Tax, Ramapuram, Chennai 600 089. Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai [Pan:Aaacf0496Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 10.10.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-2020. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2019-20 On 28.11.2019 Declaring Total Income Of ₹.16,50,00,300/-. The Return Filed By The Assessee Was 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 41Section 43B

Kailash Khemani, Raipur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

ITA 93/RPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.93/Rpr/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Kailash Khemani, V The Dcit, Circle-1(1), City Motors, Near Mmi, S Raipur. Pachpedi Naka, Raipur – 492001. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Ms.Sheetal Agrawal – Ca Revenue By Shri G.N.Singh – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Kailash Khemani Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A), Nfac Dated 01.10.2021 For The A.Y. 2017- 18 Emanating From The Order Of Acit, Raipur, Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act On 24.12.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. Whether Learned Cit(A) Is Correct In Considering The Retrospective Effect Of Amendment Made By Finance Act 2021 In Sec. 43B?

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 43B

Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints Private Limited, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-2, Surat

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

ITA 58/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.58/Srt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pcit-2, A-26, Central Park, Gidc, Pandesara Surat. S.O., Pandesara, Surat-394221. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamcs4421L

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

Tirupati Industril Services P Ld, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Cir-10, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

ITA 17/PUN/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.17/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Tirupati Industrial Services Pvt. The Dcit, Circle-10, Ltd., Vs. Pune. Ramhari Complex, Opp.Tata Motors Limited, Gawade Colony, Chinchwad, Pune – 411033. Pan: Aacct 2030 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri J.G.Pendse – Ar Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena & Shir M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 22/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2019-20 Is Directed Against The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(A)[Nfac], Delhi In Case No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1037110720(1) Dated 22/11/2021, In Proceedings U/S.143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”]. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Assessee Are As Under: “1. The Intimation By Ld Ao U/S 143(1) Is Without Considering The Representation Made By The Appellant.

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Paremaram Tikuram Choudhary Labour Contractor, Jalna vs. Assistant Director of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

ITA 681/PUN/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.681/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri M.G.Jasnani
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(i)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Swaraj Excellent Manpower Facilities P Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle, 10, Pune

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 89/PUN/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Swaraj Excellent Manpower Facilities P Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle, 10, Pune

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 88/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote