This compilation indexes 12 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and High Court rulings — spanning August 2025 to June 2026 — that engage Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the context of disallowance of employees' contributions to provident fund, ESI, and other welfare funds on account of delayed deposit. The rulings span benches across Delhi, Bangalore, Ahmedabad, Rajkot, Dehradun, Visakhapatnam, Ranchi, and the Chhattisgarh High Court, and involve a cross-section of corporate and proprietary assessees. This index is intended for use by in-house tax teams, Big-4 associates, and law firm researchers who need a consolidated starting point for case-law research on this provision.

Disclaimer: This page is a structured research index compiled from publicly available tribunal and court orders. It does not constitute legal or tax advice. Readers must verify all citations against the original judgments and consult qualified professionals before relying on any ruling for compliance or advisory purposes.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides that any sum received by an employer from his employees as a contribution to any provident fund, superannuation fund, or any other fund for the welfare of such employees, shall be allowed as a deduction only if such sum is credited by the employer to the employee's account in the relevant fund on or before the due date as specified under the law governing that fund. The expression "income" chargeable under Section 2(24)(x) treats such receipts in the hands of the employer as income, and the deduction under Section 36(1)(va) is available only upon timely deposit. The interplay between Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B — which permits deductions for certain statutory payments upon actual payment before the due date for filing the return — has been a recurring subject of litigation, with the central contested question being whether the relaxation available under Section 43B can override the stricter due-date condition in Section 36(1)(va) for the employee's share of contributions.

The 12 rulings

1. Cico Technologies Limited,Delhi vs DCIT, Circle- 4(2), Delhi

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Date: 29 June 2026
Sections engaged: 139(1), 143(1), 2(24)(x), 250, 36(1), 36(1)(va)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed by the assessee in ITA Nos. 6198 & 6199/Del/2025 covering Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20, and both appeals were disposed of by a common order on account of identical facts and grounds (except amounts). Per the source preview, the assessee's grounds referenced the decision of the jurisdictional ITAT in the case of Novelvox Softwares India Pvt. Ltd. v. ADIT, CPC (ITA No. 3757/Del/2023), contending that the CIT(A) had erred both in law and on facts in the matter arising under the sections engaged.

2. Mi2C Business Enterprises Private vs DCIT Circle 16(1) Delhi, New Delhi

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Date: 16 June 2026
Sections engaged: 139(1), 143(1), 143(1)(a), 143(3), 154, 2(24)(x), 36(1)(va), 37(1), 43B
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal covered ITA Nos. 1361, 1362 & 1363/Del/2026 for Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20. The source preview discloses figures for employer and employee shares of PF (total Rs. 3,30,99,911) and ESI (total Rs. 1,02,11,602), and records intimations under section 143(1)(a) dated 15.03.2019, 12.01.2020, and 07.05.2020 for the respective assessment years, with a Checkmate order date of 12.10.2022 for all three years. Several precedents including CIT vs AIMIL Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) are noted in the preview as part of the record.

3. Ram Dayal Bansal (Proprietor Bnasal vs Assessing Officer-ACIT Circle 61(1)

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Date: 15 June 2026
Sections engaged: 139(1), 2(24)(x), 36(1)(va), 37(1)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal in ITA No. 1336/Del/2026 relates to Assessment Year 2018-19 and was filed by the proprietor of Bansal Associates. The source preview sets out figures for Work Contract Tax (WCT) for April to June 2017 amounting to Rs. 33,85,666 and VAT refunds not received of Rs. 11,04,677, as well as various VAT refundable amounts across multiple financial years, suggesting the appeal involved disallowance-related computation issues alongside the sections engaged.

4. Mcafee Software India Private vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore
Date: 15 June 2026
Sections engaged: 143(1), 36(1)(va)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: ITA No. 1877/Bang/2025 for Assessment Year 2019-20 was filed by McAfee Software India Pvt. Ltd. against the appellate order passed by the Addl./JCIT(Appeals)-1, Noida dated 16.6.2025, wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act by the Central Processing Centre (CPC) on 27.8.2020 was partly allowed; the assessee remained aggrieved and preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal.

5. Checkmate Services Private vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Date: 15 June 2026
Sections engaged: 139(1), 143(1)(a), 154, 36(1), 36(1)(va), 43B
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: ITA Nos. 852-853/Ahd/2026 cover Assessment Years 2020-21 & 2021-22. A key ground raised by the assessee, as reflected in the source preview, was that the CIT(A) erred in confirming an addition of Rs. 30,03,01,778 on account of delay in payment of employees' PF and ESIC contribution, on the basis that at the relevant time different High Courts had given contradictory judgments, making the issue debatable and thus not suitable for a prima-facie adjustment under section 143(1)(a) of the Act.

6. M/S Varsha Construction vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

Bench: Chattisgarh High Court
Date: 16 April 2026
Sections engaged: 143(1)(a), 36(1)(va)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal (TAXC No. 133 of 2025) before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur arose out of the order dated 22-1-2025 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench in ITA No. 5/RPR/2023. The appeal was admitted on 2-9-2025 on a substantial question of law. Per the source preview, the assessee/appellant had filed the return of income for Assessment Year 2019-20 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,27,98,874 and had paid tax of Rs. 44,72,437.

7. Maa Harsiddhi Infra Developers Private vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Incime

Bench: Chattisgarh High Court
Date: 16 April 2026
Sections engaged: 36(1)(va), 143(1)(a)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal (TAXC No. 152 of 2025) before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur arose out of the order dated 19-12-2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench in ITA No. 306/RPR/2024. The appeal was admitted on 11-9-2025 on a substantial question of law. Per the source preview, the assessee had filed the return of income for Assessment Year 2019-20 declaring a total income of Rs. 2,57,41,230 and had paid tax accordingly.

8. Accurate Buildcon,Rajkot vs DCIT, Cc-1, Rajkot, Rajkot

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Rajkot
Date: 9 March 2026
Sections engaged: 139, 36(1)(va)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal covered ITA Nos. 766 to 770/RJT/2024 for Assessment Years 2017-18 to 2022-23 (hybrid hearing). The source preview identifies separate grounds in ITA No. 766/RJT/2024 (AY 2017-18) and ITA No. 767/RJT/2024 (AY 2019-20), with Ground Nos. 2 and 3 specifically enumerated for each of those two years; the order was pronounced in open court on 09-03-2026.

9. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Subhash Road vs Ujvn Limited, Gms Road

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Dehradun
Date: 27 November 2025
Sections engaged: 36(1)(va), 143(1)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeals in ITA No. 126/DDN/2025 (AY 2017-18) and ITA No. 127/DDN/2025 (AY 2024-25) were filed by the Revenue and the assessee respectively, both against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 passed under section 250 of the Act dated 28.05.2025. Per the source preview, the solitary issue in the Revenue's appeal in ITA No. 126/DDN/2025 for AY 2017-18 concerns a matter arising under the sections engaged; no further substantive detail is available from the preview.

10. Ranar Agrochem Limited,Parawada vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Vizag
Date: 31 October 2025
Sections engaged: 36(1)(va), 438(6)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: ITA No. 288/Viz/2024 for Assessment Year 2014-15 was filed by the assessee company (formerly known as M/s. Pratyusha Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd.), which had filed its return of income for AY 2014-15 on 29/11/2014 declaring an income of Rs. NIL after set-off of brought-forward losses of Rs. 69,43,433. The case was selected for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer, vide order dated 30/12/2016, made certain additions/disallowances including a disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the assessee's claim, per the source preview.

11. Neeraj Kumar Sinha,Jamshedpur vs ITO Ward-1(1), Jamshedpur

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ranchi
Date: 8 October 2025
Sections engaged: 36(1)(va), 43B
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: ITA No. 291/Ran/2024 for Assessment Year 2020-21 was filed by the assessee (proprietor of M/s Neeraj Engineering) against the order of the Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Visakhapatnam in appeal No. NFAC/2019-20/10213074 dated 31/05/2024. The appeal was adjudicated ex parte the assessee, as none represented the assessee despite the matter being posted on multiple occasions; the assessee had, however, filed a written submission which is recorded in the order.

12. Bharath Yuva Sankshema Sangham,Eluru vs Income-Tax Officer, Eluru

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Vizag
Date: 29 August 2025
Sections engaged: 143(3), 36(1)(va)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: ITA No. 160/VIZ/2025 for Assessment Year 2018-19 was filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071545008(1) dated 24.12.2024, arising out of an assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act; the appeal was heard under a hybrid hearing arrangement at the Visakhapatnam SMC Bench.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Section 143(1)(a) prima-facie adjustment as a recurring flashpoint. Multiple cases in this set — including those involving Checkmate Services, M/s Varsha Construction, Maa Harsiddhi Infra Developers, and Mi2C Business Enterprises — involve the question of whether a disallowance under section 36(1)(va) for delayed deposit of employees' contributions can be made as a prima-facie adjustment under section 143(1)(a). The Checkmate Services preview explicitly raises the contention that contradictory High Court judgments at the relevant time made the issue "debatable," which is a standard ground for resisting adjustments at the intimation stage.
Section 36(1)(va) read with section 43B as the central legal debate. Several cases — including Neeraj Kumar Sinha, Checkmate Services, and Mi2C Business Enterprises — engage both section 36(1)(va) and section 43B. This reflects the continuing litigation over whether the benefit available under section 43B (payment before due date of return filing) extends to the employee's share of PF/ESIC contributions, an issue addressed by the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (the original Supreme Court ruling), the downstream effect of which continues to generate tribunal appeals.
Multi-year consolidated appeals. A notable feature across several rulings — including Cico Technologies (AYs 2018-19 & 2019-20), Mi2C Business Enterprises (AYs 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20), Accurate Buildcon (AYs 2017-18 to 2022-23), and UJVN Limited (AYs 2017-18 & 2024-25) — is that multiple assessment years were clubbed and disposed of by a common order, suggesting that the section 36(1)(va) issue recurs across consecutive years for the same assessee.
Geographic spread of identical legal issues. The 12 rulings span ITAT benches in Delhi, Bangalore, Ahmedabad, Rajkot, Dehradun, Visakhapatnam, and Ranchi, as well as the Chhattisgarh High Court. This geographic spread confirms that the section 36(1)(va) disallowance issue is not jurisdiction-specific and continues to be actively litigated across the country even after higher-court pronouncements.
High Court admissions on substantial questions of law. Both the Chhattisgarh High Court cases (M/s Varsha Construction and Maa Harsiddhi Infra Developers) were admitted under Section 260A of the Act on substantial questions of law, indicating that the legal questions arising under section 36(1)(va) — particularly in the context of section 143(1)(a) adjustments — continue to be regarded as raising non-settled issues of law at the High Court level.

How to use this compilation

This compilation is designed as a research entry point, not a definitive statement of law. Each ruling listed here should be independently verified against the full text of the original judgment as available on the official court portal or indiankanoon.org before being cited or relied upon in any professional context. The text previews reproduced above are limited extracts from the source data and do not capture the full reasoning, holding, or dispositif of each order. In several cases, the outcome is not specified in the source data, and researchers must retrieve the complete order to determine the final direction of the ruling.

Researchers should also check whether any ruling listed here has been subsequently stayed, reversed, or distinguished by a higher court or a coordinate bench. ITAT orders are subject to challenge before the High Court under Section 260A, and High Court orders are subject to special leave petitions before the Supreme Court. The legal position under section 36(1)(va), particularly in relation to section 43B, has been the subject of higher-court pronouncements, and researchers should map each ITAT ruling in this index against the current state of binding precedent applicable to the relevant jurisdiction.

Finally, researchers should consult any CBDT circulars, instructions, or clarifications that may be relevant to the administration of section 36(1)(va), as departmental instructions can affect how assessments are framed and how appeals are conducted. This compilation does not track administrative guidance and is limited to judicial and quasi-judicial orders.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 36(1)(va) Employee Contribution Disallowance: 12 ITAT and HC Rulings (2025–2026)