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

DCIT, Corporate Circle - 1 (1), Chennai vs. M/S Aspire Systems India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment

ITA 1071/CHNY/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Dec 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1069, 1070 & 1071/Chny/2022, 159 & 315/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2017-18, 2016-17, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dcit/Jcit(Osd), M/S. Aspire Systems India Corporate Circle -1(1), V. Private Limited, Chennai – 600 034. Old No. 4, New No. 7, Ii Trust Link Road, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan: Aacca-4543-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 39 & 40/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, FCA

Section 195Section 195(2)Section 197Section 37Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)Section 9(2)

DCIT, Corporate Circle - 1 (1), Chennai vs. M/S Aspire Systems India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment

ITA 1070/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Dec 2023AY 2017-2018

For Appellant: Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, FCA

Section 195Section 195(2)Section 197Section 37Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)Section 9(2)

DCIT, Corporate Circle - 1 (1), Chennai vs. M/S Aspire Systems India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment

ITA 1069/CHNY/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Dec 2023AY 2010-2011

For Appellant: Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, FCA

Section 195Section 195(2)Section 197Section 37Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)Section 9(2)

Vivek Singhal, Indore vs. ITO3(1) CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of assesse is dismissed

ITA 22/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanivivek Singhal Dcit, Cpc 47, Manish Bagh Colony Bangaluru Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adups9604H Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.12.2023

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S. G.S. Atwal & Co.(Engg) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T, Cir-11(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1082/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1082/Kol/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S G.S. Atwal & Co.(Engg) Pvt. Ltd…………..........................……....Appellant 4B, Little Russel Street, Kolkata- 700071. [Pan: Aabcg0816E] Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata...…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Adv. On Behalf Of Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 12, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा/ Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.08.2023 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 Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Ld. C.I"T.(A) On 16.08.2023 Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 2. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T.(A) Was Wrong In Confirming The Disallowance Towards Employees Contribution Towards

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)

Snehasish Bhaumik, Kolkata vs. ACIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1077/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos. 1076 & 1077/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Snehasish Bhaumik,...............................Appellant A-3/2, Labony Estate, Salt Lake, Bidhannagar North, Kolkata-700064, West Bengal [Pan: Adypb8516H] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,........................................Respondent Cpc, Bengaluru, Bengaluru-560100 Appearances By: Shri P.J. Bhide, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Gautam Patra, Addl. Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 11, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 12, 2023

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(vi)Section 43B

Snehasish Bhaumik, Kolkata vs. ACIT, CPC, Bengaluru, Bangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1076/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(vi)Section 43B

Shaarp Aluminum, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Pune

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 957/PUN/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Choudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.957/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2019-20 M/S Sharp Aluminium F-41, S.No. 28/29 Shrushti, Guruganesh Nagar, Kothrud Pune-411038. Pan: Aczfs2580G . . . . . . .अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr MK Kulkarni & JR ChandekarFor Respondent: Mr MG Jasnani

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 250(6)Section 253(1)(a)Section 43B

Shreegopal Concrete Private Limited., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-9(2), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1070/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1070/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Shreegopal Concrete Private Limited,.........Appellant 11A, Maharshi Devendra Road, 6Th Floor, Room No. 2, Kolkata-700007 [Pan: Aajcs2118P] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,........Respondent Circle-9(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 11, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 11, 2023 O R D E R

M/S. G.S. Atwal & Co.(Engg.) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed to the extent that the assessee is entitled to the

ITA 96/KOL/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.96/Kol/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S G.S. Atwal & Co.(Engg) Pvt. Ltd…………..........................……....Appellant 4B, Little Russel Street, Kolkata- 700071. [Pan: Aabcg0816E] Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata...…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 30, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 08, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा/ Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.12.2022 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 Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Ld. C.I.T.(A) On 28.12.2022 Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 2. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T.(A) Has Dittoed The Appellate Order For The Assessment Year 2015-2016 And

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 37

M/S. G.S. Atwal & Co.(Engg.) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 95/KOL/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.95/Kol/2023 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S G.S. Atwal & Co.(Engg) Pvt. Ltd…………..........................……....Appellant 4B, Little Russel Street, Kolkata- 700071. [Pan: Aabcg0816E] Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata...…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 30, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 08, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा/ Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 03.01.2023 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 Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Ld. Ci.T.(A) On 03.01.2023 Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 2. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T.(A) Was Wrong In Confirming The Disallowance Towards Employees Contribution Towards

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 37

Mahavir Den Entertainment Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 16(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1458/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Kunal Verma, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Raghunath, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 37Section 40Section 43B

Creative Integrated Facility Management, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2806/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Creative Integrated Facility Management, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2805/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Shubh Arya Steel Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1979/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Ms Padmavathy Sshubh Arya Steel Pvtltd Vs. Acit.Circle4(3)(2), 61/2, Lakri Bunder, Aayakar Bhavan, Darukhana, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400010. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs7868R Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri C.V. Jain.ARFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule. Sr.DR

Section 143(1)

Hubli Electricity Supply, Hubballi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Huballi

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

ITA 341/BANG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R., A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R

Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 250Section 40

Salasar Warehousing Private Limited, Pune vs. Inocme Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Pune

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

ITA 59/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Nov 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryand Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.59/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Salasar Warehousing Private The Income Tax Officer, Limited, V Ward-6(1), Pune. F-2,Warehouse, Sr.No.20/2A, S Near Mundhwa Bridge, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aamcs4834C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarvesh Kandelwal – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 27/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/11/2023

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 43B

Aftab Alam, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Ward No.33(2), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 972/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 972/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Aftab Alam Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, 21/B/1, Broad Street Vs Ward 33(2), Kolkata/Dcit Cpc Ballygunge Kolkata - 700019 [Pan : Acxpa0747R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Prabir Guptachoudhury, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 20/07/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Despite Issuance Of Notice. We, Therefore, Deem It Proper To Adjudicate The Appeal & Decide It On Merits Ex-Parte, Qua The Assessee, After Hearing The Ld. D/R. 3. Heard The Ld. D/R. The Sole Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Relating To The Disallowance Of R.18,86,294/- Made By The Assessing Officer/Cpc U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act, On Account Of Delay In Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf & Esi. It Remains An Admitted Fact That The Same Has Been Deposited After The Due Date Prescribed Under The Pf & Esi Act. Recently, The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prabir Guptachoudhury, Addl. CIT

Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B