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)

Neeta Tiwari, Lucknow vs. Assessing Officer 4(2), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 125/LKW/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2019-20 Neeta Tiwari V. The Assessing Officer 4(2) 24, Akansha Lucknow Eldeco Udyan Ii Uttratia, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Afopt6232J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

M/S R.K. Engineers Sales Limited, Lucknow vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ward - 3, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 124/LKW/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S R. K. Engineers Sales V. The Dcit Limited Ward 3 B-116, 1St Floor Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aabcr8335D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms Shweta Mittal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Dee Gee Saw & Metal Works Private Limited, Lucknow vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 121/LKW/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

Dee Gee Saw & Metal Works Private Limited, Lucknow vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 120/LKW/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 May 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

Khilari Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 238/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.238/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2019-20) Khilari Infrastructure Pvt. बिधम/ Asst. Director Of Income Ltd. Tax, Cpc, Bangaluru- Vs. 101, Prabhat Centre Annex, 560500. Sector-1A, Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai-400614. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafca9143A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri H. S. Raheja (Adv.) Revenue By: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/05/2022 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) In National Faceless Appeal [Nfac], Delhi Dated 27.12.2021 For The Assessment Year 2019- 20. 2. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao(Cpc) Making Disallowance Under The Head Of Pf/ Esi For Delayed Payment U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) & Section 43B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That The Issue Involved In This Appeal Is No Longer Res-Integra & Drew Our Attention To The Decision Of Co-Ordinate Bench Of This Tribunal On This Issue In The Case Of Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri H. S. Raheja (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni (Sr. AR)
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Haldiram Foods International Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst., Director, CPC, Bengaluru

ITA 2059/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Haldiram Foods Asst. Director, Cpc International Pvt. Ltd., Centralised Processing A-204, Shyamkamal, Vs. Center, Agarwal Market, Income Tax Department, Mumbai – 400 0547 Bengaluru- 560500 Pan: Aaach3628L Karnataka (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Hitesh P. Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Chintamani V. Dingankar, D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh P. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chintamani V. Dingankar, D.R
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Equipment Fabricators, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru

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

ITA 329/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Equipment Fabricators Asst. Director Of Income 136, Khajisonehalli Tax (Cpc) Kanamangala Post Post Box No. 1, Vs. Whitefiled-Hosakote Road Electronic City Post Office Bangalore 560067 Bengaluru 560010 Pan No : Aaafe4613P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri B.S. Balachandran, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2022 O R D E R Perb.R. Baskaran: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 30/07/2021Passed By Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Solitary Issue Urged In This Appeal Relates To Disallowance Of Rs.13,85,202/- , Being Employees Contribution To Provident Fund& Esi, Made U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short].

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Ashwath Reddy Nagabhushan Reddy, Bangalore vs. Jurisdictional AO, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 134/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Sharan Fashions, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5(2)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 133/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra Nayak, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Wave Mechanics Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 689/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Wave Mechanics Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle – 7(1)92) V-3, 1 Main, I Phase Bengaluru Peenya Industrial Area Vs. Bengaluru 560058 Pan No : Aaacw3621J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Smt. Rashmi R., Advocate Respondent By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2022 O R D E R Perb.R. Baskaran: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 11/10/2021Passed By Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Solitary Issue Urged In This Appeal Relates To Disallowance Of Rs.16,21,394/- , Being Employees Contribution To Provident Fund& Esi, Made U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short].

For Appellant: Shri. Smt. Rashmi R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

P.R. Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs. ACIT/Dy. CIT/NFAC, Circle-3, Jaipur

Appeals are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 140/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Return Of Income. The Ao Being Not Satisfied With The Explanation Of The Assessee Made The Addition U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act R.W.S. 2(24)(10) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehara (Addl. CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

P.R. Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs. ACIT/Dy.CIT, Circle -3, Jaipur

Appeals are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 139/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Return Of Income. The Ao Being Not Satisfied With The Explanation Of The Assessee Made The Addition U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act R.W.S. 2(24)(10) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehara (Addl. CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd., Saras Sankul, Jln Marg, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

Appeals are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 138/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Return Of Income. The Ao Being Not Satisfied With The Explanation Of The Assessee Made The Addition U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act R.W.S. 2(24)(10) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehara (Addl. CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Vishnu Sadu Gade, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 3, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 25/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Kavitha Rajagopal () Vishnu Sadu Gade Vs Dcit, Circle-3, Thane 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Wagle C-3, 302, Ashar Estate Shreenagar, Thane (W) Industrial Estate, Road No.26Z Pan : Aabpg4702C Thane (W) – 400 604 Appellant Respondent

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

Bhagwanti Rubber and Allied Products Private Limited, Kanpur vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 31/LKW/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 May 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Vikash Agarwal, Kanpur vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 126/LKW/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Unnati Writing Products Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 563/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 563/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Unnati Writing Products Pvt. Ltd........................................................................................................Appellant 22, Buroshibtolla Main Road, Kolkata – 700 038. [Pan: Aaacu 9771 H] Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bengaluru ..................………………………………………......................................................Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Gautam Mondal, Acit Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 25, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 26, 2022

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Beauty Impex (P) Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 541/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2019-20 Beauty Impex Pvt. Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata Ltd. 21/5, Old Nimta Road, Vs. Barrackpur, North 24 Parganas – 700056. Pan: Aabcb 6201 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Gautam Mondal, Acit Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.05.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.11.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals) (Nfac) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Passing An Order U/S 250 By Dismissing The Appeal Against Disallowance Of Sum Of Rs. 23,61,241/- Being Contribution Of Employees’ Share Towards Esi, Pf, Superannuation Fund Or Any Other Fund Set Up For The Welfare Of The Employee U/S 36(1)(Va) Read With Section 2(24)(X) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 When The Payments Were Made Within The Due Dates Of Filing Of Return U/S 139 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Hence Are Allowable. 2. For That The Appellant Craves Leave To Supplement, Cancel Or Otherwise Modify Any Of The Above Grounds Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Mondal, ACIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Singhania & Sons Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 427/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

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

M/S Saint-Gobain Indi Private Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed

ITA 241/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B