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

Pnp Engineering Works (P) Ltd, Purba Medinipur vs. A C of Income Tax Cir. 27(1), Haldia

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 333/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

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

Pnp Engineering Works (P) Ltd, Purba Medinipur vs. A C of Income Tax Cir. 27(1), Haldia

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 332/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

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

Desana Poly Plastic Industries, Kolkata vs. Asstt Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 276/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Sri Aby T. Varkey & Sri Manish Borad)

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

North India Wires Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 236/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Aby T. Varkey & Sri Manish Borad)

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

Truly Pest Solution Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 217/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Aby T. Varkey & Sri Manish Borad)

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

Ravinder Narani, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officers, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 9/HYD/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year: 2019-20 Mr. Ravindar Narani, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward 9(1), Pan : Adlpn5039J. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri A. Srinivas. Revenue By: Shri T. Sunil Goutam Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.03.2022 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y 2019-20 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi’S Order Dated 16.12.2021 In Case No.Itba/ Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1037860045(1) Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(1) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

Amulya Ratan Varma, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officers, Ward -15(1), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 11/HYD/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year: 2019-20 Amulya Ratan Varma, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward 15(1), Pan : Abdpv3574G. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri M.V. Anil Kumar & Ms. C. S. Sree Lekha. Revenue By: Shri T. Sunil Goutam Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.03.2022 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y 2019-20 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi’S Order Dated 01.10.2021 In Case No.Itba/ Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1036104462(1) Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(1) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Anil Kumar and Ms. C. S. Sree LekhaFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

Sri Rama Spinner Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. M. Babu Rao, Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 740/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year: 2013-14 Sri Rama Spinner Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward 3(4), Secunderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabcr7953H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri T. Sunil Goutam Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.03.2022 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Assessee’S Appeal Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 31.08.2020 In Case No.10575/2015-16/B2/Cit(A)-3 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short, ‘The Act’]. 2. Coming To The Sole Substantive Issue Of Esi/Pf Disallowance Of Rs.1,51,877/- Made In Both The Lower Proceedings, The Assessee’S & Revenue’S Plea(S) Before Us Are That The Same Had Been Paid Before The Due Date Of Filing Sec.139(1) Return & After The Due Date Prescribed In The Corresponding Statutes; Respectively. We Notice In This Factual Backdrop That The Legislature Has Not Only Incorporated Necessary Amendment In Sections 36(1)(Va) As Well As U/S. 43B Vide Finance Act, 2021 To This Effect But Also The Cbdt Has Issued Memorandum Of Explanation That The Same Applies W.E.F. 01-04-2021. It Is Further Not An Issue That The Foregoing Legislative Amendments Have Proposed Employers’ Contribution / Disallowance U/S.43B As Against Employee’S Contribution U/S.36(Va) Of The Act; Respectively. However, Keeping In Mind The Fact That The Same Has Been Clarified To Be Applicable With Prospective Effect From 01-04-2021, We Hold That The Impugned Disallowance Is Not Sustainable In View Of All These Latest Developments. The Impugned Esi/Pf Disallowance Is Deleted Therefore.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 43B

Gretis India Private Limited, Panchkula vs. ITO, Ward - 3(5), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 374/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Mrs. Preet Kamal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 36Section 43B

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1/KOL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)

Shalimar Fabricators Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 6(1), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal for AY 2017-18 is allowed and the appeal for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed

ITA 428/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Aby T. Varkey & Sri Manish Borad)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 234CSection 23ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43BSection 44A

Fives Stein India Projects Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 8, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 410/KOL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.410/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Fives Stein India Projects (P) Ltd.................……….………………….……Appellant Saberwal House, 55B, Mirza Ghalib Street, 5Th Floor, W.B. – 700016. [Pan: Aadcs7768M] Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Kolkata........…….…..…...............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anup Sinha, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amol Kamat, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 23, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 03, 2022 Hearing Through Video Conferencing Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.08.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Are That The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income For The Relevant Year On 28.09.2010 Declaring Total Income At Rs.4,14,00,347/- Under The Normal Provisions Of The Act. In The Aforesaid Return Of Income, The Assessee Had Offered Suo Motu Disallowance Under Section 43B Of The Act Amounting To Rs.10,024/-, Rs.18,27,770/- & Rs.65,33,395/- Towards Service Tax, Bonus & Leave Encashment Respectively On Provision Basis. In The Said Return, The Assessee Had Claimed Deduction Under Section 43B Of The Act Amounting To Rs.5,06,300/-, Rs.15,03,060/- & Rs.66,58,305/- Towards Gratuity, Bonus & Leave Encashment Respectively On Payment Basis. Subsequently, The Assessee Noticed That It Had Made Certain Inadvertent Mistakes While Offering Suo Motu Disallowance & Claiming Deduction Under Section 43B Of The Act. Accordingly, During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 251Section 43B

Shalimar Fabricators Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 6(1), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal for AY 2017-18 is allowed and the appeal for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed

ITA 386/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Aby T. Varkey & Sri Manish Borad)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 234CSection 23ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43BSection 44A

DCIT, Hisar vs. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2034/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: The Appeal Is Heard & Disposed Off.”

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

M/S Udvasit Berojgar Sahakari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd., Sonbhadra vs. CIT (Exemption), Allahabad

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

ITA 27/ALLD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36(1)Section 43B

Vaaho Agencies Private Limited, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1 ( 1 ), Amritsar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee related all grounds of ITA No

ITA 30/ASR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meenash. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Jatinder Arora (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Satbir Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S Deep Nursing Home & Children Hospital, Ludhiana vs. The DCIT, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 353/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavm/S Deep Nursing Home & Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम Children Hospital, Income Tax, 481, Model Town, Circle-6, Ludhiana Ludhiana. (Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaafd6348Q

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Smt Priyanka Dhar, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Pew Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 22/KOL/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2022AY 2018-19
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Esco Engineering (P) Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 17/KOL/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Leder Wills, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 594/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2022AY 2018-19
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)