Which cases are most cited on Section 36(1)(va)?

CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. (321 ITR 508) — 1,629 citing judgments; Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (143 Taxmann.com 178) — 1,392 citing judgments; CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (319 ITR 306) — 1,344 citing judgments; CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (366 ITR 170) — 1,158 citing judgments; 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises (298 ITR 141) — 706 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 36(1)(va)?

BharatTax indexes 6,054 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act?

CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. (321 ITR 508) is the decision most relied on for Section 36(1)(va), cited in 1,629 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).

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 Act Read section 30 of the 2025 Act Read section 31 of the 2025 Act Read 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)

Kishore Kumar Hassani, Kishangarh vs. ACIT, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 230/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita. No. 229/Jp/2021 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2018-19 Deepak Hassani, Cuke A.C.I.T., Vs. Chandra Colony, Madanganj, Circle-1, Kishangarh. Ajmer. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aacph 5018 D Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Kataria (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(JCIT)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Deepak Hassani, Kishangarh vs. ACIT, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 229/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Kataria (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(JCIT)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S Gupta Builders and Promoters Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CPC/DCIT, Circle-2(1), Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 324/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR

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

Srg Earth Resources Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee company are allowed and accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed as aforesaid

ITA 95/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Srg Earth Resources Acit, Circle-5(1), Private Limited Kolkata 16, Ganesh Chandra Vs. Avenue, Gandhi House, Dalhousie, Kolkata – 700013. Pan: Aajcs2276A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri S.S. Gupta, Ar Respondent By : Md. Ghayas Uddin, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The Ld. Pcit, Kolkata-2 For A.Y. 2016-17 Vide Order Dated 22.02.2021. 2. Facts Briefly Stated As Culled Out From The Records Are That The Assessee Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Operation & Maintenance Of Coke Oven Plant For Various Steel Manufacturing Companies. The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2016-17 On 08.10.2016 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 1,46,03,550/-. The Case Of The Assessee Company Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Statutory Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued & Duly Served Upon The Assessee Company In Response To Which Compliance Letters, Submissions & Copies Of 2 Srg Earth Resources Private Limited A.Y. 2016-17 Relevant Documents Were Furnished By The Assessee Company. Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Passed On 14.12.2018 Determining Total Income At Rs. 1,47,86,650/-.

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Gupta, ARFor Respondent: MD. Ghayas Uddin, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Naman Trading Company, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 18/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Naman Trading Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Company, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 7(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aagfn1319R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 24.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2022 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi’S Order Dated 01.12.2021 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Coming To The Sole Substantive Issue Of Esi/Pf Disallowance Of Rs.1,30,120/- 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 Rohit Mujumdar

Section 139(1)Section 36Section 43B

Smart Care Facilities, Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officers, Ward -11(1), Hyderabad

In the result, two appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 358/HYD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

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

Smart Care Facilities, Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officers -Ward -11(1), Hyderabad

In the result, two appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 357/HYD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

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

Ernst & Young Service Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 8(2), New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the Assesses is allowed

ITA 5613/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Of Income U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Which Resulted Into Addition Of Rs. 23,48,801/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Disallowance .

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Harpal Singh Kharab, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Kanchan Metals Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 309/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

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

Trident Security and Allied Services Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 2(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 303/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

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

Trident Security and Allied Services Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 2(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 302/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

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

Microviews Infosystems Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.P.C., Bangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 295/KOL/2021[2018-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2022AY 2018-18

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

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

Flowline Services Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 267/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

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

Victory Surveilliance & Escorts (P) Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 162/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

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

Weld Fuse Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle 17(2), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 12/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year: 2019-20 Weldfuse Private Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Circle 17(2), Hyderabad (Order Passed By Adit, Pan : Aaacw2119H. Cpc, Bangalore). (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Sandhya Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.02.2022 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, Delhi’S Order Dated 01.12.2021 In Case No.Itba/ Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1037409327(1) Involving Proceedings U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short, ‘The Act’]. 2. Coming To The Sole Substantive Issue Of Esi/Pf Disallowance Of Rs.3,10,015/- 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: Ms. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36Section 43B