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)

Stars Multipurpose Co-Operative Society Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 13/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं/Ita No. 13/Hyd/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Stars Multipurpose Vs. Deputy Commissioner Co-Operative Society Of Income Tax, Limited, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan No. Aakas6153R] अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत् यर्थी/Respondent नििााररती द्वारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ar राजस् व द्वारा/Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/04/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 30/04/2024 आदेश / Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23/11/2023 Passed By The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-4, Mumbai, (“Ld. First Appellate Authority”), Relating To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Co- Operative Society, Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29/10/2018 Admitting ‘Nil’ Income. The Cpc Bengaluru (“Cpc”) In The Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(“ The Act”), Dated 22/10/2019 Disallowed The Provident Fund Payment & Esi Fund Payment Of Rs. 14,56,847/- On The Reason That The Said Payments Are Not Allowable U/S. 36(1)(Va) Of The Act & Determined The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 14,56,847/- & Finally Raised A Demand Of Rs.5,59,053/-.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 72(2)

Jyotin Kumar Sahoo, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8/CTK/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.7,8 & 306/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021 21 & 2021-22 Jyotin Kumar Sahoo, Plot Jyotin Kumar Sahoo, Plot Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle Dcit/Acit, Circle-2(1), No.112/256A, Lane No.112/256A, Lane-3, Cave Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Road, Road, Khandagiri, Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Ahjps 8082 N (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.R.Pattnaik, Ca B.R.Pattnaik, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/0 04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/0 /04/2024 O R D E R Per Bench All These Three All These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Are Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 23.11 Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 23.11.2022 In Appeal No.Nfac/2018 In Appeal No.Nfac/2018- 19/10024405 For The Assessment Year 2019-20, In Appeal No.Nfac/2019 20, In Appeal No.Nfac/2019- 20/10074302 For The Assessment Year 2020 20/10074302 For The Assessment Year 2020 20/10074302 For The Assessment Year 2020-21 & In Appeal No.Nfac/2020 No.Nfac/2020-21/10167847 For The Assessment Year 2021 21/10167847 For The Assessment Year 2021-22, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri B.R.Pattnaik, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR
Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

Jyotin Kumar Sahoo, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7/CTK/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Apr 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.7,8 & 306/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021 21 & 2021-22 Jyotin Kumar Sahoo, Plot Jyotin Kumar Sahoo, Plot Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle Dcit/Acit, Circle-2(1), No.112/256A, Lane No.112/256A, Lane-3, Cave Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Road, Road, Khandagiri, Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Ahjps 8082 N (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.R.Pattnaik, Ca B.R.Pattnaik, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/0 04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/0 /04/2024 O R D E R Per Bench All These Three All These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Are Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 23.11 Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 23.11.2022 In Appeal No.Nfac/2018 In Appeal No.Nfac/2018- 19/10024405 For The Assessment Year 2019-20, In Appeal No.Nfac/2019 20, In Appeal No.Nfac/2019- 20/10074302 For The Assessment Year 2020 20/10074302 For The Assessment Year 2020 20/10074302 For The Assessment Year 2020-21 & In Appeal No.Nfac/2020 No.Nfac/2020-21/10167847 For The Assessment Year 2021 21/10167847 For The Assessment Year 2021-22, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri B.R.Pattnaik, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR
Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

Odisha State Medical Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle -1(2), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 38/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2017-18 Odisha Odisha State State Medical Medical Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle Dcit/Acit, Circle-1(2), Corporation Ltd., Infront Of Corporation Ltd., Infront Of Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Ram Mandir, Bhubaneswar. Ram Mandir, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aabco 9370 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Natabar Panda Natabar Panda, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/0 04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/0 /04/2024 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 9.12.2022 In Appeal No. In Appeal No. Cit(A), Bhubaneswar- -1/10575/2018-19 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri Natabar Panda, Natabar Panda, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri D Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr. Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Natabar PandaFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR
Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

Jyotin Kumar Sahoo, Khorda vs. DCIT Ciecle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 306/CTK/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.7,8 & 306/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021 21 & 2021-22 Jyotin Kumar Sahoo, Plot Jyotin Kumar Sahoo, Plot Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle Dcit/Acit, Circle-2(1), No.112/256A, Lane No.112/256A, Lane-3, Cave Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Road, Road, Khandagiri, Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Ahjps 8082 N (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.R.Pattnaik, Ca B.R.Pattnaik, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/0 04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/0 /04/2024 O R D E R Per Bench All These Three All These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Are Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 23.11 Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 23.11.2022 In Appeal No.Nfac/2018 In Appeal No.Nfac/2018- 19/10024405 For The Assessment Year 2019-20, In Appeal No.Nfac/2019 20, In Appeal No.Nfac/2019- 20/10074302 For The Assessment Year 2020 20/10074302 For The Assessment Year 2020 20/10074302 For The Assessment Year 2020-21 & In Appeal No.Nfac/2020 No.Nfac/2020-21/10167847 For The Assessment Year 2021 21/10167847 For The Assessment Year 2021-22, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri B.R.Pattnaik, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR
Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B