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)

R.K. Carriers India Private Limited, Udaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 147/JODH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2014-15 R.K. Carriers India Private The Acit, Limited, 4 Laxmi Nagar, Subcity V Circle-1, Centre Chouraha, Sector No. 8, S Udaipur (Raj.) Hiran Magri, Udaipur (Raj.)- 313001 Pan: Aadcr8681E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 09/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09/08/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Delhi Dated 29.08.2022 Emanating From The Order Under Section 143(3) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Passed By Acit, Circle-1, Udaipur For The A.Y.2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Ld. Cit (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi Has Grossly Erred In Facts & In Law In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs. 308827.00 Made On Account Of Delayed Statutory Payment Of Employee Contribution Of Pf As Per The Provisions Of Section 36(1)(Va) Of The It Act, 1961 As Per His Convenience. Therefore, The Action Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi Is Unwarranted, Against The Principles Of Natural Justice, Illegal & Unjustified & The Disallowance So Made & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Deleted. R.K. Carriers India Private Ltd. 2. That The Appellant Reserves His Rights To Add, To Alter Or To Modify Any Grounds Of The Appeal On Or Before Hearing Of The Same.”

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

Narang Connect Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 7 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2083/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm Ita. No.2083/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Narang Connect Pvt. बिधम/ Dcit-7(3)(1) Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B-869, 2Nd Floor, Sarkar Mumbai-400020. Heritage, Kane Road, Bandstand, Bandra (West), Mumbai-400050. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn5921E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Anil Sant सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 01.07.2022 For Ay. 2011-12. 2. It Is Noted That This Captioned Appeal Of Assessee Company Was Allowed In The First Round By This Tribunal Vide Order Dated 28.09.2022. However, The Same Has Been Recalled In Ma No. 231/Mum/2023 In The Light Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Decision In The Case Of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cit (448 Itr 518). Therefore, This Appeal Is Adjudicated Afresh. The Main Grievance Of Assessee Is Against The Action Of Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Disallowance Of Employee’S Contribution Made Towards Pf/Esi To The Tune Of Rs.6,07,937/-. 3. Despite Notice None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of This Appeal After Hearing The Ld. Dr. From A Perusal Of The Records, It Is Discerned That The Cpc

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 10ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)