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)

Essar Steel Logestics Limited, Surat vs. Dy. CIT Circle 1(1))1), Surat

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

ITA 695/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.695/Srt/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Essar Steel Logistics Limited, Vs Dy.Commissioner Of 27 Km Hazira, Surat Road, . Income Tax, [Circle- Hazira, Surat. 1(1)(1)], Surat. [Pan: Aadce 3876 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रतीकीओर से /Assessee By Shri Rajesh Bhanwala – Ca राज"कीओर से /Revenue By Ms. Usha Shrote – Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 24.03.2021 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 25.03.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Surat, Hereinafter Referred As “Ld.Cit(A)” Dated 27.08.2018 For The A.Y.2014-15. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law On The Subject, Assessing Officer Has Erred In Making Addition Of Rs.12,45,026/- U/S. 36(1)(Va) On Account Of Employees Pf Contribution. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, Assessing Officer Has Erred In Making Addition Of Rs.86,75,510/- On Account Of Undisclosed Receipt In Case Of Short Claim Of Tds Of Rs.1,73,511/-.

Section 36(1)(va)

DCIT Corporate Circle 1 (1), Chennai vs. M/S Agnice Fire Protection Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1107/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1107/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Agnice Fire Protection Limited, Income Tax, Vs. No. 2, G.K. Industrial Estate, I Main Corporate Circle 1(1), Road, Alapakkam, Porur Post, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 116. [Pan: Aaaca9432F] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Suresh Periasamy, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai Dated 29.12.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Made Towards Non-Payment Of Employees Contribution Of Epf & Esi To The Tune Of ₹.61.71 Lakhs, Which Was Disallowed Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Periasamy, JCITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur vs. M/S. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1287/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jan 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1287/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2016-17 D.C.I.T., Cuke M/S Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Vs. Circle-6, Limited, Jaipur. Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabcj 6373 K Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Mukesh Verma (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : P.C. Parwal (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 03/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2016-17, Wherein The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs. 6,88,83,063/- Made For Depositing The Employees’ Contribution To Pf & Esi Beyond The Prescribed Time Limited Provided In The Respective Acts. 2. Whether In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Holding That The Employees’ Contribution To Pf & Esi Are Governed By The Provisions Of Section 43B & Not By Section 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961.”

For Appellant: P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Mukesh Verma (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B