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)

Allied Resource Management Services Aspire Private Limited, Pune vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, (CPC), Bangalore

ITA 444/PUN/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliasstt. Assessee’S Departmental Sr

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Allied Resource Management Services Aspire Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC), Bangalore

ITA 443/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliasstt. Assessee’S Departmental Sr

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Mr Harischandra Dharamnath Pandey, Nashik vs. Additional Director of Income Tax (CPC), Bengaluru

ITA 430/PUN/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliasstt. Assessee’S Departmental Sr

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Mr Harischandra Dharamnath Pandey, Nashik vs. Additional Director of Income Tax (CPC), Bengaluru

ITA 429/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliasstt. Assessee’S Departmental Sr

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Clover Infotech P Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

ITA 412/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliasstt. Assessee’S Departmental Sr

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Mr Madan Sitaram Karande, Ichalkaranji vs. Assistant Director of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

ITA 407/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliasstt. Assessee’S Departmental Sr

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Hilary Vaz, Pune vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengalore

ITA 402/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliasstt. Assessee’S Departmental Sr

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Globeflex Research I P Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Director of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

ITA 372/PUN/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliasstt. Assessee’S Departmental Sr

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Govindsingh Balrajsingh Jadoun, Nashik vs. Assistantdirector of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

ITA 355/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliasstt. Assessee’S Departmental Sr

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Dwarkadhish Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Nashik vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

ITA 321/PUN/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliasstt. Assessee’S Departmental Sr

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

M/S Kothari Agritech P Ltd, Solapur vs. Assistant Director of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

ITA 320/PUN/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliasstt. Assessee’S Departmental Sr

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

M/S. Fino Paytech Limited, Mumbia vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 9(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5638/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perumpura
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S. Suresh Electricals, Bellary vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 724/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Suresh Electricals, Vs. Dcit, Ward No.25, Cmc T. S. No.227, Tilak Cpc, Nagar, Khb Colony, Bengaluru. Bellary – 583 101. Pan : Abyfs 9751 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. B. S. Balachandran, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2022 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Nfac, Delhi, Dated 12.07.2022, Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Only Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Revenue Authorities Were Justified In Disallowing Payment Made To Esi/Pf Being Employees’ Share Of Contribution Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). 3. In This Regard, It Is Pertinent To Note That The Employee Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Was Promulgated To Provide For Such Institution Of Provident Funds, Pension Fund & Deposit-Linked Insurance Fund For Employees In Factories & Other Establishments. It Aims To Build Adequate Retirement Corpus For The Salaried Class Of Employees. The Fund Includes Contributions From The Employer & Employee Both, Page 2 Of 14

For Appellant: Shri. B. S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

Cleanflo India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Circle-6(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1621/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Baldev Raj, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari R., Sr. DR
Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

Biswajit Nayak, Rajgangpur vs. ITO Ward-2, Rourkela

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

ITA 17/CTK/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack24 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2018-19 Biswajit Biswajit Nayak, Nayak, C/O. C/O. Vs. Ito, Ward Ito, Ward-2, Rourkela Biswajit Nayak, Banthupara Biswajit Nayak, Banthupara Rajgangpur, Rajgangpur, Sundargarh Sundargarh- 770017 Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Abwpn 2210 J (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : S/Shri S.K.Agarwalla, Ca & S.K.Hota & S.K.Hota, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/11 11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/11 11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-Nfac, Nfac, Delhi Delhi Dated 23.12.2021 23.12.2021 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/.250/2021 Itba/Nfac/S/.250/2021-22/1038053683(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. S/Shri S.K.Agarwalla S.K.Agarwalla, Ca & S.K.Hota, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: S/Shri S.K.Agarwalla, CA and S.K.Hota and S.K.Hota, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, SR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

ITA 87/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.87/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Swaraj Excellent Manpower The Dcit, Circle-10, Facilities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Pune. Pooja Park, 197/2, Near Over Bridge, Pune Nashik Highway, At Post, Moshi, Tal. Haveli, Pune – 412105. Pan: Aaqcs 0729 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Dated 01.12.2021 Emanating From The Order Of The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Dated 26.12.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal By The Assessee Are As Under : “1] The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.47,48,973/- U/S 36(1 )(Va) Or Account Of Employee’S Contribution To Provident Fund On The Ground That There Was A Delay In Depositing The Dues Within The Time Limit Specified Under The Pf Act.

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

Bengal Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 10(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 477/KOL/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri H. V. Bhardwaj, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 2Section 2(24)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S. IV Sanctum, Bengaluru vs. Additional Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 986/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Iv Sanctum, Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, #18/19, 4Th Cross, 5Th Main, Cpc, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 009. Pan : Aawfm 3697 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2022 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Nfac, Delhi, Dated 29.09.2022, Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Only Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Revenue Authorities Were Justified In Making A Disallowance On Delayed Payment Of Employee’S Contribution To Esi & Pf Of Rs.4,94,192/- Made By The Assessee Beyond The Due Date By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). 3. On The Above Issue, It Is Not Disputed That As Per The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Rendered In The Case Of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd Vs Cit-1 In Civil Appeal 2833/2016 Vide Its Judgment Dated 12 October 2022 Decided The Issue On Allowability/Treatment Of ‘Delayed’ Employee Pf Contribution Payment In Hands Of Assessee Under Provisions Page 2 Of 4

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Bhoruka Fabcons Private Limited, Mysuru vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 910/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Bhoruka Fabcons Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, No.427E, Hebbal Industrial Area, Cpc, Mysuru – 570 016. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaccb 9377 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Bhargava S. N, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2022 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Nfac, Delhi, Dated 28.07.2022, Relating To Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Only Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Revenue Authorities Were Justified In Disallowing Payment Made To Esi/Pf Being Employees’ Share Of Contribution Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). 3. In This Regard, It Is Pertinent To Note That The Employee Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Was Promulgated To Provide For Such Institution Of Provident Funds, Pension Fund & Deposit-Linked Insurance Fund For Employees In Factories & Other Establishments. It Aims To Build Adequate Retirement Corpus For The Salaried Class Of Employees. The Fund Includes Contributions From The Employer & Employee Both, Calculated In The Prescribed Manner Under The Relevant Act. As Per Page 2 Of 13

For Appellant: Shri. Bhargava S. N, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

Nalina Dyave Gowda, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 685/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 Ms. Nalina Dyave Gowda, Vs. The Adit, #129/25, Shree Paada, Cpc, Sanjeev Shetty Layout, Bidadi, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 109. Pan : Aqcpn 0102 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2022 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.06.2022 Of Nfac, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Only Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Revenue Authorities Were Justified In Making A Disallowance On Delayed Payment Of Employee’S Contribution To Esi & Pf Of Rs.14,58,631/- Made By The Assessee Beyond The Due Date By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). 3. On The Above Issue, It Is Not Disputed That As Per The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Rendered In The Case Of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd Vs Cit-1 In Civil Appeal 2833/2016 Vide Its Judgment Dated 12 October 2022 Decided The Issue On Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B