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)

Mercury Car Rentals Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir.- 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 374/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Aby T. Varkey & Sri Manish Borad)

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

Pengg Usha Martin Wires Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 355/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Aby T. Varkey & Sri Manish Borad)

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

Pnp Engineering Works (P) Ltd, Purba Medinipur vs. A C of Income Tax Cir. 27(1), Haldia

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 334/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

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

Pnp Engineering Works (P) Ltd, Purba Medinipur vs. A C of Income Tax Cir. 27(1), Haldia

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 333/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

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

Pnp Engineering Works (P) Ltd, Purba Medinipur vs. A C of Income Tax Cir. 27(1), Haldia

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 332/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

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

Desana Poly Plastic Industries, Kolkata vs. Asstt Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 276/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Sri Aby T. Varkey & Sri Manish Borad)

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

North India Wires Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 236/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Aby T. Varkey & Sri Manish Borad)

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

Truly Pest Solution Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 217/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Aby T. Varkey & Sri Manish Borad)

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

Ravinder Narani, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officers, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 9/HYD/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year: 2019-20 Mr. Ravindar Narani, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward 9(1), Pan : Adlpn5039J. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri A. Srinivas. Revenue By: Shri T. Sunil Goutam Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.03.2022 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y 2019-20 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi’S Order Dated 16.12.2021 In Case No.Itba/ Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1037860045(1) Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(1) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

Amulya Ratan Varma, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officers, Ward -15(1), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 11/HYD/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year: 2019-20 Amulya Ratan Varma, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward 15(1), Pan : Abdpv3574G. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri M.V. Anil Kumar & Ms. C. S. Sree Lekha. Revenue By: Shri T. Sunil Goutam Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.03.2022 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y 2019-20 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi’S Order Dated 01.10.2021 In Case No.Itba/ Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1036104462(1) Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(1) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Anil Kumar and Ms. C. S. Sree LekhaFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

Sri Rama Spinner Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. M. Babu Rao, Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 740/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year: 2013-14 Sri Rama Spinner Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward 3(4), Secunderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabcr7953H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri T. Sunil Goutam Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.03.2022 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Assessee’S Appeal Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 31.08.2020 In Case No.10575/2015-16/B2/Cit(A)-3 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short, ‘The Act’]. 2. Coming To The Sole Substantive Issue Of Esi/Pf Disallowance Of Rs.1,51,877/- Made In Both The Lower Proceedings, The Assessee’S & Revenue’S Plea(S) Before Us Are That The Same Had Been Paid Before The Due Date Of Filing Sec.139(1) Return & After The Due Date Prescribed In The Corresponding Statutes; Respectively. We Notice In This Factual Backdrop That The Legislature Has Not Only Incorporated Necessary Amendment In Sections 36(1)(Va) As Well As U/S. 43B Vide Finance Act, 2021 To This Effect But Also The Cbdt Has Issued Memorandum Of Explanation That The Same Applies W.E.F. 01-04-2021. It Is Further Not An Issue That The Foregoing Legislative Amendments Have Proposed Employers’ Contribution / Disallowance U/S.43B As Against Employee’S Contribution U/S.36(Va) Of The Act; Respectively. However, Keeping In Mind The Fact That The Same Has Been Clarified To Be Applicable With Prospective Effect From 01-04-2021, We Hold That The Impugned Disallowance Is Not Sustainable In View Of All These Latest Developments. The Impugned Esi/Pf Disallowance Is Deleted Therefore.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 43B

Gretis India Private Limited, Panchkula vs. ITO, Ward - 3(5), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 374/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Mrs. Preet Kamal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 36Section 43B

Soltex Insolation P. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1/KOL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma)

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

Shalimar Fabricators Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 6(1), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal for AY 2017-18 is allowed and the appeal for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed

ITA 428/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Aby T. Varkey & Sri Manish Borad)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 234CSection 23ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43BSection 44A

Shalimar Fabricators Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 6(1), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal for AY 2017-18 is allowed and the appeal for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed

ITA 386/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Aby T. Varkey & Sri Manish Borad)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 234CSection 23ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43BSection 44A

M/S Udvasit Berojgar Sahakari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd., Sonbhadra vs. CIT (Exemption), Allahabad

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

ITA 27/ALLD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36(1)Section 43B

Vaaho Agencies Private Limited, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1 ( 1 ), Amritsar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee related all grounds of ITA No

ITA 30/ASR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meenash. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Jatinder Arora (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Satbir Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S Deep Nursing Home & Children Hospital, Ludhiana vs. The DCIT, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 353/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavm/S Deep Nursing Home & Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम Children Hospital, Income Tax, 481, Model Town, Circle-6, Ludhiana Ludhiana. (Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaafd6348Q

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Smt Priyanka Dhar, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Pew Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 22/KOL/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2022AY 2018-19
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Esco Engineering (P) Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 17/KOL/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal

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