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)

Gyan Cirkitronics Pvt. Ltd, Lucknow vs. ACIT-3, Lucknow-New

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 403/LKW/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2020-21 Gyan Cirkitronics Private Vs. Acit-3, Lucknow-New Limited, Plot No. 6-B, Malviya Nagar Aishbagh, Lucknow, U.P. 226004 Pan:Aabcg2210J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashwini Kumar, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwashi, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.05.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Jcit(A), Thane, Dated 03.05.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Partly Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Which Was Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Ao Under Section 154 Dated 29.04.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Income Returned Should Have Been Accepted. 2. That Application Filed Under Section 154 Should Have Been Accepted. 3. The Addition Made By Cpc Was Not Within The Preview Of Adjustments Which Could Be Made Under Section 143(1)(A). 4. That The Learned Lower Court Erred In Facts & Legal Aspects Of The Case In Not Allowing Expenses Of Rs. 833161/- Invoking Section 36(1)(Va), 5. That The Order Passed Is Against The Merit, Circumstances & Legal Aspects Of The Case. 5. That The Appellant Seeks Permission To Modify And/Or Add Any Other Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal As The Circumstances Of The Case Might Require Or Justify.”

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwini Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwashi, Addl CIT DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

ACIT 6(3), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industires Ltd, Mumbai

In the result Revenue's appeal is dismissed

ITA 6758/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am

Section 36(1)(va)

Grasim Industries Ltd 9Corporate Finance Division), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

ITA 5982/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 36(1)(va)

Sanjeev Kumar Bakshi, Haryana vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 3, Haryana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 297/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing The Return Of Income Under Section 139(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2 5. The Facts In Brief Are That The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Act By The Cpc, Bangalore, Disallowing Employees’ Contribution To Pf/Esi To The Extent Of Rs. 29,87,930/-, Relying Upon The Dates Of Actual Payment Furnished In The Tax Audit Report, Which Indicated That The Payments Were Made Beyond The Statutory Due Dates.

For Appellant: Ms. Priyanka Jindal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Adroit Corporate Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Churchgate

In the result, the appeal as well the stay application of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 6288/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Neera SawantFor Respondent: Mr. Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited, New Delhi vs. CIT Appeals-25, New Delhi

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

ITA 480/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Eagle Hunter Solutions Vs Commissioner Of Income Limited Tax (Appeals)-25 61C, Kalu Sarai, Sarvapriya New Delhi Vihar, New Delhi-110016 Pan: Aabce0565E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 270A(2)Section 270A(2)(a)Section 36(1)

Lumen It India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, this ground of assessee is dismissed

ITTPA 1334/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: FixedITAT Bangalore16 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(Tp)A No.1334/Bang/2024 Assessmentyear:2020-21 Lumen It India Private Limited Salarapuria Touchstone 4Thflr Sy.No.15/1A & 14P7 Kadbeesanahalli Dcit Vs. Varthur Hobli Circle-4(1)(1) Bangalore 560 103 Bangalore

For Appellant: Sri Padma Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 230Section 232Section 244A

Bajajsons Ltd., Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Central Circle III, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal stand dismissed

ITA 935/CHANDI/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 935/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Bajajsons Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ C-103 Phase V Focal Point Central Circle Iii Vs. Ludhiana 141010 Ludhiana-141001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacb-6875-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sarabjit Garg (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23-04-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2021- 22 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana [Cit(A)] Dated 27-06-2024 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issue By Cpc U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 04-03-2021 Disallowing Late Payment Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf / Esi For Rs.5.44 Lacs In Terms Of Sec.43B R.W.S. 36(1)(Va) As Well As Sec.2(24)(X). The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Same, Inter-Alia, By Relying Upon The Decision Of Hon’Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Checkmate

For Appellant: Sh. Sarabjit Garg (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 14BSection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Kuldeep Singh, Ludhiana vs. ITO Ward (3) (1), Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal stand dismissed

ITA 717/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 717/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Kuldeep Singh Ito Ward No (3)(1) बनाम/ 33F Jmd Mall Opp. Railway Station Aayakar Bhawan Vs. Punjab 141001 Rishi Nagar, Punjab. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bchps-1635-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24-04-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 22-04-2024 In The Matter Of An Rectification Intimation Issued By Cpc U/S 154 Of The Act On 21-06-2023. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared For Assessee. Left With No Option, The Appeal Was Heard With The Able Assistance Of Ld. Sr. Dr Who Stated That The Issue Stood Squarely Covered Against The Assessee By The Decision Of Hon’Ble Apex Court.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Satish Kumar Rana, Kangra vs. Income Tax Officer, Kangra Himachal Pradesh

In the result, the appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1190/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 1190/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Shri Satish Kumar Rana Ito-Ward 42(3)(3) बनाम/ H.No. 90, Dhaniara, Duhak Mumbai Vs. Thural, Kangra, Hp – 176075 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaupr-3944-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Written Submissions ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-05-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Addl. / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad [Cit(A)] Dated 18-12-2023 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issued By Cpc U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 16-12-2019. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared For Assessee. However, The Written Submissions As Filed By The Assessee Were Duly Considered. The Ld. Sr. Dr Stated That The Issue Stood Squarely Covered Against The Assessee By The Decision Of Hon’Ble Apex Court. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 281 Days In The Appeal Which Stand Condoned.

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited, Thrissur vs. DCIT Circle 1(1) & Tps, Thrissur

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

ITA 307/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Harikrishnanunny, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43B

Springer Nature Technology and Publishing Solutions Private Limited, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 5, Pune

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

ITA 2800/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Springer Nature Technology and Publishing Solutions Private Limited, Pune vs. The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department and the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 5, Pune

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

ITA 1141/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

M-Five Security Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward -17 (1), Delhi

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

ITA 544/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.M-Five Security Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, 126, Greenview Apartment, Ward-17(1), Mandi Road, New Delhi Manglapuri, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccm2375B

For Appellant: Shri Naveen Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Indraprastha Logistics Private Limited, Delhi vs. AO, CPC Bengaluru

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

ITA 473/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanestha, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Indraprastha Logistics Private Limited, Delhi vs. AO, CPC Banglore

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

ITA 471/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanestha, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

ACIT, Circle- 3, Nainital vs. Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd., Nainital

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed as above

ITA 1200/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)

ACIT, Nainital vs. M/S. Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd., Nainital

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed as above

ITA 908/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)

Shri Jagdish Kumar Gulia, Bhopal vs. Thre Asstt.Directore of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 245/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 260ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

M/S Daulataram Engineering Services P.Ltd, Mandideep vs. The ADIT/CPC, Bangalore

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

ITA 244/IND/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 May 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 260ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B