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)

Ours Youth Club, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 22/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.22/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Ours Youth Club Vs. Income Tax Officer 1-19-17, Bc Colony Agraharam Ward-1 Vizianagaram Vijayanagaram [Pan : Aaaao2600H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

West-Bengal Power Development Corporate Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-4(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 195/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 The West Bengal Power Development Dcit, Circle-4(2), Corporation Limited Kolkata Bidyut Unnayan Bhaban, Plot No. Vs. 3/C, Block La, Sector-Iii, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700098. Pan: Aabct 3027 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Anuj Musaddi, Ca & Shri Rishav Narendra, Ar Respondent By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.01.2023 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1(A). On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred In Upholding Additions/Disallowances Made By The Ld. Ao Under The Provisions Of The Act In The Order Under Section 143(3)/ 263 Of The Act. 1(B). On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred In Not Considering The Submission Dated 16 August 2018 Filed By The Appellant Before The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata & Passing The Order Stating That The Appellant Has Not Complied With The Notices Of Hearing, Thereby Tendering The Order Unjust & Illegal: 2(A). Without Prejudice To Ground No. 1(B) Above, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Grossly Erred In Upholding The Disallowance Of Depreciation Of Rs 21,30,15,951 Made By The Ld. Ao Under Section 32(1) Of The Act On Account Of Non-Production Of Documentary Evidences For Capitalization Of Capital Spares, Office Equipment Or Building Township. 2(B). On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals)/ Ld. Ao Grossly Erred In Not Considering That The Aforesaid

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Musaddi, CA & Shri Rishav Narendra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, CIT, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 32(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(7)Section 43B

Shri. M.Krishnamurthy, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 326/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Umesh P Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B, Addl. Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 36(1)Section 43B

Haldiram Foods International Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir-10(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1482/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathyआअसं.1482 /मुं/2023(िन.व.2018-19) Haldiram Foods International Private Limited, A-204, Shyamkamal, Agrawal Market, Vile Parle East,Mumbai 400 057. Pan: Aaach-3628-L ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 10(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Hitesh Shah ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Prashant Mahajan, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 39

Sks Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru, Bangluru

In the result, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower authorities hence, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 865/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm Sks Enterprises Shop No. 2&3, Dcit, Cpc, Kings Apartment, Bengaluru 560500 Vs. Juhu Tara Road, Juhu, Mumbai-400 049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abafs1216K Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2023

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Raipur vs. Hi-Tech Abrasive Private Limited, Raipur

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 142/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.142/Rpr/2018 (Assessment Year: 2014-2015) Acit, Circle-2(1), Raipur Vs Hi-Tech Abrasive Pvt. Ltd. 740, Sector-B, Urla Industrial Area, Raipur Pan No. :Aaach 5950 M & Cross Objection No.14/Rpr/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.142/Rpr/2018) (Assessment Year: 2014-2015) Hi-Tech Abrasive Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Raipur 740, Sector-B, Urla Industrial Area, Raipur Pan No. :Aaach 5950 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/07/2023

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 50

Swamina International (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kol, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 536/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S. Prolific Consultants (India) Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 432/BANG/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Srinivas K.P., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S. Scantech Laser Pvt. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Cir 15(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1968/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing M/S. Scantech Laser Pvt. Ltd Of Return U/S.139(1). In Both The Years Prima Facie Adjustments Have Been Made U/S.143(1) Disallowing The Payment Of Employees Pf & Esic U/S. 36(1)(Va) On The Ground That Same Has Been Paid After Due Date Prescribed Of The Respective Acts.

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S. Scantech Laser Pvt. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Cir 15(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1967/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing M/S. Scantech Laser Pvt. Ltd Of Return U/S.139(1). In Both The Years Prima Facie Adjustments Have Been Made U/S.143(1) Disallowing The Payment Of Employees Pf & Esic U/S. 36(1)(Va) On The Ground That Same Has Been Paid After Due Date Prescribed Of The Respective Acts.

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

New Light Facility Management, Jlandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -4 (3), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 140/ASR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Radial International, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, New Delhi

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

ITA 340/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Return During The Year.

For Appellant: Shri Nagesh Kumar Behl, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

DCIT, Central Circle -15, New Delhi vs. B.L.Kashyap & Sons Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross objection of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2622/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 The Dcit, Centralcircle-15, New Delhi M/S. B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd., 409, 4Th Floor, Dlf Tower-A, Jasola, 110055 Vs. New Delhi 110025 Pan Aaacb 0205 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 174/Del/2022 In Ita No.2622/Del/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd., The Dcit, Centralcircle-15, New Delhi 409, 4Th Floor, Dlf Tower-A, Jasola, 110055 New Delhi 110025 Vs. Pan Aaacb 0205 F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sourav Rohtagi, CA
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)

Ntt Data Information Processing Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITTPA 922/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 922/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Ntt Data Information Processing Services Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of Plot No. 178, Epip Phase Ii, Income Tax, Whitefield, Vs. Circle – 3(1)(1), Industrial Area, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aadcd9895L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 36(1)(va)Section 92Section 92C

Complete Solutions Facilty Management Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-14(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1323/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambartha
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Guntubolu Uma Sai Prasad, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 97/VIZ/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Guntubolu Uma Sai Prasad, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 227/VIZ/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Guntubolu Uma Sai Prasad, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 226/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Ratul Dutta, Kolkata vs. ADIT-CPC, ITO, 50(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 253/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 253/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ratul Dutta Adit – Cpc, Bangalore 24, Ac Sarkar Road Vs Kolkata - 700076 [Pan : Akjpd8614Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Swati Baid, Fca Revenue By : Mr/Ms S. Datta, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/07/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 06/02/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made U/S 43B Of The Act At Rs. 13,26,510/- On Account Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf & Esi. 3. We Have Heard Rival Contentions & Perused The Material Placed Before Us. It Is An Admitted Fact That The Alleged Sum Was Paid After The Due Date Prescribed Under The Relevant Act. The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cit (2022) 143 Taxmann.Com 178 (Sc) Has Held That “Deduction U/S 36(1)(Va) In Respect Of Delayed Deposit Of Amount Collected Towards Employees’

For Appellant: Shri Swati Baid, FCAFor Respondent: Mr/Ms S. Datta, CIT D/R
Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Vichare Express & Logistics Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT. DCIT-CPC, Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 335/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri, S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Vichare Express & Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Dit – Cpc Bangaluru 407/408, Kesar Plaza, A Wing, Rdp-6, Centralized Processing Centre, Vs. Charkop, Kandivali (West) Bengaluru-560100 Mumbai-400067 Pan/Gir No.Aaacv4075B (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, Ar : Ms. Vranda U Matkari, Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 18.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.07.2023 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)