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)

Akash Dilip Kabule, Shirwal Satara vs. ADIT, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 378/PUN/2026[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jul 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.378/Pun/2026 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Akash Dilip Kabule, Vs. Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru. Shivalay, Kedareshwar Master, Khandala, Shirwal, Satara- 412801. Pan : Dnupk8470G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajkumar Doshi Revenue By Shri Rajesh Haladkar : Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.11.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-2, Bengaluru [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Limitation & Delay Condonation: A. Dismissal Of Appeal For Limitation Without Appreciating The Facts & Circumstances Placed Quashes The Right Of An Opportunity Of Being Heard & Hence Falls Beyond The Principles Of Natural Justice. B. The Reasons Accorded For Dismissal Of The Appeal Was That The Intimation Was Allegedly Issued On 21.11.2022 On The Email & By Post However, The Email Stated In Order In Appeal Neither Belongs To The Appellant, Nor Was Under The Direct Or Indirect Control Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Doshi
Section 143(1)(a)Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

Transsys Solutions Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward - 6(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1393/CHNY/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.1393/Chny/2026 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2020-21) Transsys Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer F-A, I Floor, Ragavendra Flats Vs. Corporate Ward 6(1) 133, Pushpammal Street Chennai. Krishnapuram, Ambattur Chennai – 600 053. [Pan:Aadct4603N] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. M.Lavanya, Ca Department By : Shri. E.Elango, Jcit सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Nfac, Delhi (In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)’) For The Assessment Year 2020-21, Vide The Order Dated 28.10.2022 Against The Intimation Issued By The Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru, (In Shot “Ao”) U/S.143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) Dated 18.12.2021. :-2-: 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That The Present Appeal Has Been Filed With A Delay Of 1165 Days. The Assessee Has Moved A Petition Seeking Condonation Of The Delay, Duly Supported By An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Belated Filing Of The Appeal As Detailed Below:

For Appellant: Ms. M.Lavanya, CAFor Respondent: Shri. E.Elango, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)