Section 40A(7) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 40A(7) is CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (366 ITR 170), cited in 1,158 of the 70 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 40A(7)

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.

Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
348 ITR 306 · 2012 · Supreme Court
313
citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars cannot be imposed for a mere disallowance, bona fide mistake, or inadvertent error, especially when relevant facts are disclosed in the tax audit report. The levy of penalty requires proof of intent to conceal income or furnish false particulars.

Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd.
226 ITR 625 · 1997 · Supreme Court
244
citing judgments

For income tax purposes, particularly under Section 22, the 'owner' is the person entitled to receive income in their own right, and formal registration of a sale deed is not mandatory. This 'real owner' principle also extends to claiming depreciation on capital assets, where the person bearing the risks and utilizing the asset is considered the owner.

100/223 Taxman 398/366 ITR 170 (Guj.) 3. CIT v. Merchem Ltd.
61 Taxmann.com 119 · 2015 · High Court
168
citing judgments

An amendment clarifying the disallowance of employee contributions under sections 36(1)(va) and 43B is prospective. Therefore, before such amendment, employee contributions paid before the due date for filing the income tax return are deductible.

Kalpesh Synthetics (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT
137 Taxmann.com 475 · 2022 · ITAT
125
citing judgments

A deduction claimed under Section 36(1)(va) for employee contributions remitted after the statutory due date but before the return filing due date cannot be disallowed during intimation processing under Section 143(1) if the issue is debatable. Such a disallowance cannot be made automatically based solely on auditor's mention of actual vs. due dates in the tax audit report.

378 ITR 443 (Kerala); and Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT
409 ITR 225 · 2018 · High Court
67
citing judgments

The beneficial provisions of Section 43B do not apply to sums covered by Section 36(1)(va), which are employee contributions to welfare funds. The scope of Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are distinct, meaning belated payment of employee contributions is not deductible under Section 43B, and only Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) governs their deductibility.

Foundry (P.) Ltd. v. CIT
78 Taxmann.com 47 · 2017 · High Court
64
citing judgments

An employer can claim deduction for employee contributions to provident fund or ESI under Section 36(1)(va) if these sums are deposited on or before the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139, extending the benefit of Section 43B to such payments.

CIT v. Bharat 42 Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Aluminium Co. Ltd.
303 ITR 256 · 2008 · High Court
45
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax must be satisfied that an assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue to invoke revisionary powers under Section 263. If either condition is not met, a revision under Section 263 cannot be initiated.

35 &36 of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange
14 SCC 171 · 2008 · Reported
35
citing judgments

Judges discover and find the correct law, not make it. A later Supreme Court decision clarifying a legal position operates retrospectively, even if an earlier decision was in effect for some time.

Goerge v. State of Kerala
3 SCC 557 · 2007 · Reported
35
citing judgments

Decisions of the Supreme Court declaring the law are retrospective in nature unless specified otherwise. Judges discover and find the correct law, and later decisions clarifying legal positions are treated as having retrospective effect.

Judgments on Section 40A(7)

THE KASAULI CLUB,SOLAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, , SOLAN

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 832/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.832/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) The Kasauli Club Ito, Exemption Ward बनाम/ Vs. Upper Mall, Kasauli Club, Kasauli, Solan (Hp) - 173213 Solan, Himachal Pradesh - 173204 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabct-6983-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sahil Chadha (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-11-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Addl. / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 23-04-2025 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issued By Cpc U/S 143(1) On 18-12-2021 Disallowing Provision Of Gratuity For Rs.14,50,110/- U/S 40A(7) As Reported By Tax Auditor. Having Heard Rival Submissions, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: Sh. Sahil Chadha (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 40A(7)Section 40A(7)(a)

Showing 120 of 70 · Page 1 of 4