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)

Dozco (India) Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT(CPC), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 338/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.338/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dozco (India) Pvt. Ltd.............................................…………………….……Appellant Co. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocate Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069. [Pan:Aabcd0776E] Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore…………….…..…...............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 20, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 03, 2022 Hearing Through Video Conferencing Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.08.2021 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. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.2,07,62,303/- Made By The A.O On Account Of Delay In Payment Of Employees’ Contribution Towards The Provident Fund. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Issue Is Covered In Favour Of The Assessee By Various Court Decisions Including The Hon’Ble Calcutta High Court & That The Amendments Made By The Finance Act, 2021 Were Not Applicable To The Relevant Year. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Further Grounds Of Appeal Or Alter The Grounds At The Time Of Hearing..”

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

Valtree Global Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officers, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 10/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2018-19 Valtree Global Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward 3(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaecv8314R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Siddharth Toshnival Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar. Date Of Hearing: 03/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 03/02/2022 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y 2018-19 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi’S Order Dated 15.11.2021 In Case No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1036923575(1) Involving Proceedings Under Section 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth ToshnivalFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36Section 43B

Pramod Kumar Sanghi, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 549/HYD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2018-19 Pramod Kumar Sanghi, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Hyderabad – 91. Of Income Tax, Circle 4(1), Pan : Advps0709C. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri B. Satyanarayana Murthy Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar. Date Of Hearing: 03/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 03/02/2022 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y 2018-19 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi’S Order Dated 01.11.2021 In Case No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1036683864(1) Involving Proceedings Under Section 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri B. Satyanarayana MurthyFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36Section 43B

Hawk Security Services Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 529/HYD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2018-19 Hawk Security Services Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-Tax Officer, Circle – 2, Hyderabad. Pan – Aaach 4942H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 03/02/2022 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A)’S National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Order Dated 18/11/2021 For Ay 2018-19 Involving Proceedings U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, In Short “The Act”.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Jai Balajee Security Services Private Limited, Chittoor vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 522/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15 Jai Balajee Security Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Services Pvt. Ltd., Chittoor. Income, Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabcj 5273C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M Prudhvi Raj For Shri Sashank Dundu Revenue By: Shri Swapnil Patil Date Of Hearing: 03/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 03/02/2022 O R D E R Per A. Mohan Alankamony, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021- 22/1036860424(1), Dated 12/11/2021 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act For The Ay 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Four Grounds In Its Appeal However, The Crux Of The Issue Is That:

For Appellant: Shri M Prudhvi Raj for Shri Sashank DunduFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Patil
Section 139Section 147Section 2Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

V S Eximast, Erragadda Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 521/HYD/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Feb 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Satbee Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2019-20 V.S. Eximast, Hyderabad. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Officer, Pan – Aabfv3222A Circle – 6(1), Hyderabad. 0(Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri C.S. Subramanyam Revenue By: Shri Swapnil Patil For Shri Ts Goutam Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 03/02/2022 O R D E R Per S.S. Godara, J.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A)’S National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Order Dated 29/10/2021 For Ay 2019-20 Involving Proceedings U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, In Short “The Act”.

For Appellant: Shri C.S. SubramanyamFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Patil for Shri TS Goutam
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Shree Shyam Designs Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 700/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Shree Shyam Designs Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, No.50/1A/514/2/1, Shri Rajarajeshwari Central Processing Centre, Arcade, 2Nd Floor, Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru. Veerannapalya, Nagawara, Bengaluru – 560 045. Pan : Aakcs 8509 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. C. A. Madhukeshwar Hegde, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan: V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. C. A. Madhukeshwar Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S. Icon Engineering Works, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 561/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Raghavendra Maya, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

M/S M.B.Jewellers & Sons, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 44, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 343/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargi.T.A. No.343/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S M. B. Jewellers & Sons, Kolkata.........................…………………….……Appellant P-10, Ground Floor, Devendra Dutta Lane, Barabazar, W.B-700007. [Pan: Aaefm7973J] Vs. Dcit, Circle-44, Kolkata………….…..…...............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, C.A, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Gautam Mondal, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 02, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 02, 2022 Hearing Through Video Conferencing Order

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S Baid Power Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 179/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargi.T.A. No.179/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Baid Power Services Pvt. Ltd..........................…………………….……Appellant 152, Lake Town, Block-B, Kolkata-700089. [Pan: Aaccb5805B] Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore………….…..…...............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Gautam Mondal, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 02, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 02, 2022 Hearing Through Video Conferencing Order

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

Bharnobari & Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 459/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Bharnobari & Industries Pcit-2, Kolkata Ltd. Diamond Heritage, 14Th Vs. Floor, Suite No.1401, 16, Strand Road, Kolkata- 700001. Pan: Aabcb0981B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Puja Somani, Ca Respondent By : Shri Amol Kamat, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.2022 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Pcit’) Relevant To A.Y 2015-16. 2. The Only Issue Raised In This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Revisionary Jurisdiction Exercised By Pcit U/S 263 Of The Act On The Ground That The Assessing Officer Failed To Disallow & Add Rs.72,29,000/- Towards Employee’S Contribution To Pf Which Was Paid/Deposited After The Due Date As Specified Under The Pf Act & Therefore, The Assessment Framed By The Assessing Officer Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Puja Somani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kamat, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Majestic Enterprises, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officers, Ward -5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 520/HYD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Satbee Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2018-19 Majestic Enterprises, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 5(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aacfm818F 0(Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mv Joshi For P. Murali Mohana Rao Revenue By: Shri Swapnil Patil For Shri Ts Goutam Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 02/02/2022 O R D E R Per A. Mohan Alankamony, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A)’S National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Order Dated 26/10/2021 For Ay 2018-19 Involving Proceedings U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, In Short “The Act”.

For Appellant: Shri MV Joshi for P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Patil for Shri TS Goutam
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Marappa Shivakumar, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 696/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CA
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Telecomone Teleservices India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 695/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Cherian K.Baby, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Telecomone Teleservices India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 694/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Cherian K.Baby, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Thiruvalaya Venugopal, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 687/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Mrinalini R., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshini Mishra, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Suresh & Co., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 538/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Poornima S, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Shri Amarjeet Aggarwal & Company, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1 (1), Bathinda

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

ITA 5/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar01 Feb 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Praveen Chaudhary , AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.M Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Kochar Sung Up Acrylic Limited, Amritsar vs. Deputy Commiossioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Amritsar

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

ITA 19/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar01 Feb 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Praveen Chaudhary , AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.M Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Shri Ashok Kumar, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward - 5 (1), Amritsar

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

ITA 18/ASR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar01 Feb 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Praveen Chaudhary , AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.M Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)