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

Pabitra Banerjee, Jharsugudha vs. ITO, Ward-1, Jharsugudha

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

ITA 24/CTK/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.24/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Pabitra Banerjee, Vs. Ito Ward-1, Jharsuguda Prop. M/S Durga Enterprises, At-Gumadera, Po-Belpahar, Dist: Jharsuguda-768218 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Agfpb 3419 B (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Binod Agarwal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri J.K.Lenka, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 18/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Sambalpur, Dated 17.10.2019 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. For That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Wholly Unjustified To Confirm Addition Of Rs.2,25,254/- Being The Provident Fund Amount Paid Via Tata Refractories Ltd. As Per Arrangement Between The Assessee, A Contractor Under The Principal Tata Refractory Ltd.. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Failed To Appreciate This Simple Business Practice & Ignoring All The Evidences Produced Confirmed The Addition Which Is Totally Illegal, Unjustified & Bad In Law & Should Be Totally Allowed In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. For That Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.30,76,893/- Terming It As Non-Genuine Purchase Is The Result Of Non-Appreciation Of Facts & Law & Ignoring Evidence Produced On Wholly Wrong Premises, Which Is Wholly Unjustified, Illegal & Vitiated & Should Be Fully Deleted In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Binod Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR

Suryoday Small Finance Bank Ltd.(Earlier Known As Suryoday Micro Finance Ltd.), Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT - 15(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3440/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Sri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 3440/Mum/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2014-15) Suryoday Small Finance Bank The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax-15(3)(2) (Earlier Known As Suryoday Aaykar Bhvan, Mahareshi Micro Finance Ltd.) Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ बनाम बनाम बनाम 1101, Sharda Terraces, Plot Vs. No.65, Sector 11, Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai-400 614 (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" / Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ"/ Respondent) ""यथ" ""यथ" "थायी "थायी लेखा "थायी "थायी लेखा लेखा संसंसंसं./Pan No. Aamcs5499J लेखा : Shri Yogesh Thar, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Vinod Kumar, Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By 05.12.2019 सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 02.03.2020 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य / Per Rajesh Kumar, Am: These Are Appeals By The Assessee Directed Against Respective Orders Of Learned Cit(A) Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Ground Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 3Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

DCIT, Ncc - 2 (1), Chennai vs. Shri Sailendra Kumar Kethineni, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2263/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2263/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 & C.O. No. 104/Chny/2019 [In I.T.A. No. 2263/Chny/2019] The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Sailendra Kumar Kethineni, Income Tax Vs. No. 61, Greenways Road, R.A. Puram, Non Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai 600 028. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aafpk8983P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Chennai Dated 10.04.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Effective Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Made In Respect Of Employees Contribution Towards Pf/Esi & Treating The Sale Of Land In Sholinganallur As Capital Asset On The Basis Of Book Entry Without Appreciating That Book Entries Are Not Determinative Of Income Of Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CITFor Respondent: Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 43B