Section 43B of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.37

Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 37 (Certain deductions allowed on actual payment basis only) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 37 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 43B is CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. (321 ITR 508), cited in 1,629 of the 7,161 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 43B

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.

CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders
349 ITR 336 · 2012 · High Court
956
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims or revised computations of income made by an assessee, even if these were not submitted through a revised return of income.

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.

Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT
82 ITR 363 · 1971 · Supreme Court
654
citing judgments

Tax liability for an item of income or expenditure is determined solely by the provisions of the Income-tax Act. Entries in an assessee's books of account are not conclusive and do not govern the taxability or deductibility of an item, as the legal rights and obligations under the Act prevail.

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. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn
41 Taxmann.com 100 · 2014 · High Court
540
citing judgments

Employees' contributions to provident fund or other welfare funds are deductible under section 36(1)(va) only if paid by the due date specified in the respective welfare fund enactments, and section 43B does not extend this period to the income tax return filing due date under section 139(1).

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.

Judgments on Section 43B

Soltek Insolation P. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 285/KOL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2019-20 Soltek Insolation Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward-7(1), Kolkata C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Vs. Floor, Suite No. 203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700001. (Pan: Aatcs 0007 M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.04.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. For That On A Proper Interpretation Of The Scope & Ambit Of The Provisions Of Section 43B Read With S. 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – Nfac Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc In Resorting To The Impugned Disallowance Of Rs. 42,35,172/- In The Instant Case & The Purported Finding On That Behalf Is Absolutely Arbitrary, Unreasonable & Perverse.

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

Bharai Industrial Promoters Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 987/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jan 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.987/Chny/2022 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Bhari Industrial Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Acit No.4, Buhari Building, 3Rd Floor, बनाम Corporate Circle-1(1), Moores Road, Thousand Lights, Chennai. / Vs. Chennai – 600 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacb-3142-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ("#थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri V. Padmanaban (Fca) – Ld. A.R "#थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar - (Jcit) – Ld. D.R सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12-01-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12-01-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): 1. In The Aforesaid Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, The Sole Issue That Fall For Our Consideration Is Disallowance Of Late Payment Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf / Esi In Terms Of Sec.43B R.W.S. 36(1)(Va) As Well As Sec.2(24)(X). During Hearing, It Transpires That This Issue, On Merits, Now Stood Covered Against The Assessee By The Recent Decision Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Bunch Of Appeals Titled As Checkmate Services P. Ltd. Vs Cit (Civil Appeal No.2833 Of 2016 Dated

For Appellant: Shri V. Padmanaban (FCA) – Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar - (JCIT) – Ld. D.R
Section 2(24)(x)Section 43B

M/S. Fayaj Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 114/CTK/2020[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack11 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. M/S. Fayaj Fayaj Infratech Infratech Pvt Pvt Vs. Dcit, Circle 1(1), Aayakar Dcit, Circle 1(1), Aayakar Ltd., C-56, 56, Baramunda Baramunda Bhavan, Bhubaneswar. Bhavan, Bhubaneswar. Housing Housing Board Board Colony, Colony, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcf 6797 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Ar K.K.Bal, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11 /01 01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/01 /01/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, 1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.12.2019 In Appeal No. In Appeal No. 0509/17-18 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Shri K.K.Bal, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Shri K.K.Bal, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Shri K.K.Bal, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 40Section 43B