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)

Gd Foods and Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle 26, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 221/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023AY 2019-20
Section 10Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 4Section 43B

Lit India P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-15(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2698/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Atul Puri, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

Lit India P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 15(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2697/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Atul Puri, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

Krishna Upkeep P Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 14(3), Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2273/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. R. K. Gour, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Kant Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

Krishna Upkeep P Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 14(3), Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2272/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. R. K. Gour, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Kant Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

Nanesh Projects, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 63/RPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C.Roy, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 43B

Cochin Port Authority ( Formerly Cochin Port Trust), Kochi vs. DCIT Non Corporate Circle 2(1), Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 655/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Jul 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Gopi K, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 260ASection 263Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Ortem Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kol, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 500/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 Ortem Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. Pcit - 2, Kolkata P-141, Kalindi Housing Estate, Vs. Kalindi Vatika, 4D, Block-B, Lake Town, Kolkata-700089. Pan: Aabco 2390 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri S. Datta, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, Kolkata-2 Dated 21.03.2023 Framed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Of The Ld. Pcit Is Contrary To Law & The Facts Of The Appellant Case. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Pcit Erred In Holding That Order Passed U/S 143(3) Dated 08-02- 2021 Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue. 3. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Pcit Erred In Disallowing Employee Contribution Of Rs. 1,53,300/- & Employer Contribution Of Rs. 1,44,998/- Made Towards Provident Fund (Pf) & Employee State Insurance Corporation (Esic). 4. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Pcit Erred In Not Considering The Fact That Both Employee & Employer Contribution Aggregating Rs. 2,98,298/- Was Made Before The Due Date Of Filing Income Tax Return.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)Section 43B

Hasmukh Khetshi Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-23(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1251/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: PendingITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathyआअसं.1251 /मुं/2023(िन.व.2018-19) Hasmukh Khetshi Shah, 138/150, Dadi Sheth Agiyari Lane, Mumbai 400 002 Pan: Aapps-1090-K ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Dcit, Cir.23(1), Matru Mandir, Mumbai 400 007. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Ashok Mehta ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Smt. Usha Gaikhwad

For Appellant: Shri Ashok MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Usha Gaikhwad
Section 10Section 36(1)(va)

Weltech Facility Management Services (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-27(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand

ITA 265/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ramdhan Meena, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Shivalic Power Control P.Ltd, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 137/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

Ashirbad Housekeeping Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO- Ward 3(3), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2303/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Satyajeet Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

M/S. Shaildeep Engineering P. Ltd., Rajkot vs. The DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 85/RJT/2023[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot07 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2019-20 Shaildeep Engineering P.Ltd. Vs. Adit, Cpc C-1/38, Gidc, Aji Industrial Delhi. Estate, Phase-1, Rajkot Sanosara B.O.,Jaliya Rajkot 360 003. Pan : Aaecs 9245 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri Akash Goda, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) Dated 27.12.201 Pertaining To The Asst.Year 2019-20. 2. As Transpires From Orders Of The Authority Below, The Grievance Of The Assessee Is Vis-À-Vis Adjustment Made To The Income Of The Assessee In The Intimation Made Under Section 143(1) Of The Act By Way Of Disallowance Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 80Jja Of The Act Amounting To Rs.2,02,500/- & Disallowance Of Employees’ 2 Contribution To Esi & Pf In Terms Of Section 36(1)(Va) Amounting To Rs.2,81,444/-. The Reasons For Disallowance Of Deduction Under Section 80Jja Being Non-Filing Of Necessary Audit Report In Form No.10Da Along With Return Of Income & That For Disallowance Of Employees’ Contribution To Esi & Pf Being Late Deposit Of The Same With The Requisite Funds.

For Appellant: Shri Akash Goda, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, ld.Sr.DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80J

M/S. Champion Agro Ltd., Sapar (Veraval), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Deputy Comissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 46/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot07 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 144Section 271(1)(c)

M/S. Champion Agro Ltd., Sapar (Veraval), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Deputy Comissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 45/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot07 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 144Section 271(1)(c)

M/S. Champion Agro Ltd., Sapar (Veraval), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Deputy Comissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 44/RJT/2018[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot07 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 144Section 271(1)(c)

Raj Trimurti Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 750/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jul 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 36(1)(va)

Glitters Forever House Keeping Service Private Limited, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 99/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Bashir Ahmad Lone, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Priyanka Singla, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Glitters Forever Hose Keeping Service Private Limited, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 100/ASR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Sh. Bashir Ahmad Lone, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Priyanka Singla, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Aroon Aviation Services P.Ltd, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeals filed by the assessees in ITA No

ITA 91/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2023AY 2019-20
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)