Which cases are most cited on Section 43B?

CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. (321 ITR 508) — 1,629 citing judgments; Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (143 Taxmann.com 178) — 1,392 citing judgments; CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (319 ITR 306) — 1,344 citing judgments; CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (366 ITR 170) — 1,158 citing judgments; CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (349 ITR 336) — 956 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 43B?

BharatTax indexes 7,161 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 43B of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 43B of the Income Tax Act?

CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. (321 ITR 508) is the decision most relied on for Section 43B, cited in 1,629 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).

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

Richfield Fertilisers P Ltd, Nashik vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 482/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Cemetile Industries Vs. Ito, Ward-14(1), 61, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Pune Hadapsar, Pune – 411013 Pan : Aaafc8438L Appellant Respondent "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Itcube Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle 7Th Floor, 701/702/703, Godrej 1(1), Pune Castlemaine, Near Ruby Hall, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411001 Pan : Aabci1951J Appellant Respondent "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Exfo Electro-Optical Vs. Dcit, Circle Engineering (I) Pvt. Ltd. 1(1), Pune 6Th 604, Floor, Tower S4, Cybercity, Magarpatta, Pune – 411013 Pan : Aabce6929J Appellant Respondent "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 R R Kapoor Company Vs. Adit, Cpc, 11, Prerana Arcade, Opp. Tarakpur Bengaluru Bus Stand, Ahmednagar – 414001 Pan : Aaefr9509B Appellant Respondent

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

Rajendra Bapu Shinde, Pune vs. Income Tax Office, Ward8(1), Pune

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 471/PUN/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

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

Suhail Masood Shaikh, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 456/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

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

R R Kapoor Company, Ahmednagar vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 451/PUN/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

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

M/S Orchid Pharma Ltd. (Formerly M.S Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.), Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 275/CHNY/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Respondent: Mr.S.Marudhu Pandian, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

DCIT, Chennai vs. Ab Mauri India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 3317/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / It(Tp)A No’S.84 To 86/Chny/2018 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Plot No.218 & 219, Vs Of Income-Tax, Corporate Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle-1(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No’S.3315 To 3317/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" The Deputy Commissioner M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Of Income-Tax, Corporate Vs Ltd., Circle-1(1), Plot No.218 & 219, Chennai – 600 034. Bommasandra Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

DCIT, Chennai vs. Ab Mauri India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 3316/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

DCIT, Chennai vs. Ab Mauri India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 3315/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Chase Security, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 796/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Chase Security, Vs. The Ito, No.16/A, 1St Floor, Millar Tank Bund Ward – 6(3)(1), Cpc, Road, Vasanth Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 052. Pan : Aaefc 2412 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sheethal Borkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2022 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Dated 29.04.2021 By The Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Only Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Revenue Authorities Were Justified In Disallowing Payment Made To Esi/Pf Being Employees’ Share Of Contribution Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). 3. In This Regard, It Is Pertinent To Note That The Employee Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Was Promulgated To Provide For Such Institution Of Provident Funds, Pension Fund & Deposit-Linked Insurance Fund For Employees In Factories & Other Establishments. It Aims To Build Adequate Retirement Corpus For The Salaried Class Of Employees. The Fund Includes Contributions From The Employer & Employee Both, Page 2 Of 14

For Appellant: Smt. Sheethal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

S B Creations, Nai Sarak, Delhi vs. Asstt. Director, Income Tax

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1270/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, CIT DR

Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

Vinod Kumar Tandon, Allahabad vs. DCIT(CPC), Begaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 29/ALLD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad22 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234BSection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Cube Constructions Engineering Ltd., Vadodara vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-(Central), Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 86/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Cube Constructions Engineering The Pr.Cit, Limited, (Central), Vs. 1, Chandamani Nagar, Vidhya Surat. Vihar, Subhanpura, Vadodara, 390020. Pan No. Aaccc 8103 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 35(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Kanishka Prints Private Limited, Surat vs. Pr. CIT, 1, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 76/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Kanishaka Prints Private Limited, The Pr.Cit-1, 177/178, Gidc, Pandsera, Surat. Vs. Surat, Gujarat Pin-394221 Pan No. Aabck 0020 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Pengg Usha Martin Wires Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 8(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 366/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 366/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pengg Usha Martin Wires Private Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited Tax, Circle-8(2), Kolkata Vs 2A, Victoria Plaza Shakespeare Sarani Theatre Road Kolkata - 700071 [Pan : Aadcp9007G] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumyadip Roy Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/10/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 13/06/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1.That On The Facts Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A)Nfac) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Passing An Order U/S 250 By Dismissing Appeal Against Disallowance Of Sum Of Inr 10,63,921/- Being Contribution Of Employees' Share Towards Esi, Pf, Superannuation Fund Or Any Other Fund Set Up For The Welfare Of The Employee U/S 36(1)(Va) Read With Sec. 2(24)(X) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Has Not Relied On The Decision Of Hon'Ble Itat In Their Own Case For The Ay 2018-19 Where It Was Held That The Amendment Brought In Finance Act 2021 In Relation To Section 36(1)(Va) & Section 43B Of The Act Is Prospective In Nature & Would Apply From Ay 2021-22 Onwards.

For Appellant: Shri Soumyadip Roy Choudhury, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Datwyler Pharma Packaging I P Ltd, Satara vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle, Satara

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 98/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 139(1)Section 30(1)(va)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S Lokmangal Mauli Industries Ltd, Solapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Solapur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 96/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 139(1)Section 30(1)(va)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S. Radisys India Limited (Formerly Known As Radisys India Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 190/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mahveer C Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Binod Kumar Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)

Vijay Engineering Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur vs. ACIT, CPC, Bangalore (Now Present Juridiction at Dy. CIT, Circle-I, Nagpur)

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 62/NAG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Abhay N Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, D.R

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 43B

Vijay Engineering Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur vs. ACIT, CPC, Bangalore (Now Present Juridiction at Dy. CIT, Circle-I, Nagpur)

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 61/NAG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Abhay N Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, D.R

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 43B

M/S. Swosti Travels & Exports Pvt. Ltd, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO Ward-1(4), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 116/CTK/2022[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack17 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. M/S. Swosti Swosti Travels Travels & & Vs. Ito, Ito, Ward Ward 1(4), 1(4), Exports Pvt Ltd., Plot No. Exports Pvt Ltd., Plot No.- Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar 103, 103, Janpath, Janpath, Unit Unit-3, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaecs 5748 J (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri C.Parida, Ar C.Parida, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/11 11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11 11/2022 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), , Nfac, Nfac, Delhi Delhi Dated 19.4.2022 19.4.2022 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 /Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1042771695(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Shri C.Parida, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Shri C.Parida, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Shri C.Parida, 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 C.Parida, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B