This compilation indexes twelve income-tax rulings—eleven from various benches of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and one from the Madras High Court—all pronounced between April 2026 and July 2026 and engaging Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The rulings span a range of fact patterns: CPC-level disallowances of statutory payments, the interplay between Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) on delayed employees' PF and ESI contributions, scrutiny assessments, rectification proceedings, and penalty matters. This index is intended for in-house tax teams, Big-4 associates, and law firm researchers who need a structured starting point for further primary-source research.

Research index only. This page is a neutral case-law reference compiled for research purposes. It does not constitute legal or tax advice, and nothing herein should be relied upon as a substitute for advice from a qualified professional on any specific matter.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides that certain deductions—including contributions by the employer to any provident fund, superannuation fund, gratuity fund, or other fund for employee welfare; any sum payable by the assessee as interest on any loan or borrowing from a public financial institution or a scheduled bank; and certain other specified payments—shall be allowed only in the previous year in which such sum is actually paid, irrespective of the method of accounting followed by the assessee, and only if such payment is made on or before the due date for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), or in some cases before the end of the previous year. The section has been the subject of sustained litigation, particularly in its interaction with Section 36(1)(va), which governs the deductibility of employees' contributions to welfare funds received by the employer but not deposited within the statutory due date under the relevant labour law.

The 12 rulings

1. Itc Infotech India Limited,Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 1(1),, Kolkata

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata
Date: 16 July 2026
Sections engaged: 43B
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (I.T.A. No.2942/KOL/2025) was filed by the assessee against the order of the JCIT(A), Kochi dated 03.10.2025 for Assessment Year 2021-22. The sole issue raised by the assessee's representative was against the CIT(A)'s upholding of an order passed under Section 154 of the Act, which arose from an intimation under Section 143(1) wherein payments covered under Section 43B aggregating to Rs.11,25,44,273/- were not allowed despite the assessee's contention that the same were paid during the financial year and duly reported.

2. Atiabari Tea Company Limited,Sevoke vs D.C.I.T., Circle - 1(1),, Jalpaiguri

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata
Date: 13 July 2026
Sections engaged: 2(24)(x), 36(1)(va), 43B
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No.3164/Kol/2025) was filed by the assessee against the order of ADDL/JCIT(A), Ranchi dated 21.10.2025 for Assessment Year 2024-25. Per the source preview, the assessee's representative submitted that the issue involved in the appeal concerns employees' contribution towards PF and ESI, and that the return filed by the assessee came to be processed and an intimation was issued thereafter; the appeal was directed against the CIT(A)'s order arising from that processing.

3. Rakesh Kumar Sharma,Panipat, Haryana vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Panipat

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Date: 8 July 2026
Sections engaged: 43B, 139(1)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No.942/DEL/2026) was directed against the order of the CIT(A), Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Jaipur dated 25-11-2025 pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-21, arising out of an assessment order dated 30-11-2021. Per the source preview, the assessee had filed a return of income electronically for AY 2020-21 declaring total income of Rs.86,06,260/-, and the CPC processed the ITR and assessed total income at Rs.1,98,75,980/-, with the CPC making certain additions; the appeal was filed against the CIT(A)'s order upholding those additions.

4. Transsys Solutions Private vs The Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward -

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Date: 8 July 2026
Sections engaged: 36(1)(va), 43B
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No.1393/CHNY/2026) was filed against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi for Assessment Year 2020-21, against the intimation issued by the Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru dated 18.12.2021. The appeal was heard on 10.06.2026 and pronounced on 08.07.2026; the source preview is procedural in nature and does not set out the substantive outcome.

5. Gurmeet Singh Hora, Raipur,Raipur vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Raipur
Date: 2 July 2026
Sections engaged: 43B, 36(1)(va), 2(24)(x)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No.45/RPR/2023) emanated from the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 13.12.2022 for Assessment Year 2018-19. Per the source preview, the case involved a disallowance on account of the employee's share of contribution towards PF and ESI made by the Assessing Officer, and the CIT(A)/NFAC had upheld the addition by relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT; the ITAT Raipur bench heard and pronounced the order on 02.07.2026.

6. Proxima Creations ,Pune vs Income Tax Officer Ward 3(1), Pune

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune
Date: 2 July 2026
Sections engaged: 43B, 144
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Two appeals (ITA Nos. 2626 and 2808/PUN/2025) were filed by the assessee against separate orders of CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2018-19. Per the source preview, ITA No. 2626/PUN/2025 was filed against the NFAC/CIT(A) order passed under Section 144 read with Section 144B and Section 250 of the Act, while ITA No. 2808/PUN/2025 was filed against the CIT(A)/NFAC order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 and Section 144B of the Act; the two appeals involved related issues and were heard together.

7. Micromatic Machine Tools Pvt vs DCIT, Cpc, Cpc

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Date: 2 July 2026
Sections engaged: 43B
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No.825/Del/2024) was filed against the order of CIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi dated 17.06.2026, arising out of an order under Section 154 of the Act dated 28.03.2019 for Assessment Year 2017-18. Per the source preview, the CPC while processing the return of income of the assessee made a total addition of Rs.55,05,436/-, of which a sum of Rs.54,66,082/- was made on account of delayed payment of employees' contributions towards PF; the appeal was directed against the CIT(A)'s order on this disallowance.

8. Processia Plm Private Limited,Pune vs National Faceless Assessment Center

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune
Date: 30 June 2026
Sections engaged: 270A, 43B
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No.2006/PUN/2025) was directed against the order dated 13.06.2025 passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC for Assessment Year 2017-18. Per the source preview, the assessee is a company engaged in the business of software development and manufacturing prototypes and had filed an original return of income on 29.11.2017 declaring income of Rs.36,56,910/-, subsequently revising it to Rs.1,16,260/-, and the case was selected for scrutiny; the further details of the substantive ground are not set out in the available preview.

9. Cie Automotive India Limited vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Date: 16 June 2026
Sections engaged: 139(1), 143(3), 43B
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No.7348/Mum/2025) related to Assessment Year 2005-06, with the assessee being CIE Automotive India Limited (successor of Sheetmetal Stampings Ltd.). The source preview sets out a table of disallowances including manufacturing expenses, power and fuel expenses, and outside labour and processing charges totalling Rs.7,56,38,664/- with disallowances computed at 5%; the full substantive grounds and outcome are not set out in the available preview, and the appeal was pronounced on 16.06.2026.

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

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Date: 16 June 2026
Sections engaged: 143(1)(a), 36(1)(va), 43B
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Three appeals (ITA Nos. 1361, 1362 & 1363/Del/2026) were filed covering Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20. Per the source preview, the assessee's grounds challenged the addition on account of delay in payment of employees' PF and ESIC contributions as a prima-facie adjustment, and the CIT(A) was alleged to have erred in confirming an addition of Rs.30,03,01,778/- on account of delay in payment of employees' PF and ESIC contribution at a time when different High Courts had given contradictory judgments on the issue; the intimations under Section 143(1)(a) were issued for the three assessment years on 15.03.2019, 12.01.2020, and 07.05.2020 respectively, all preceding the Checkmate Services Supreme Court order dated 12.10.2022.

11. Checkmate Services Private vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Date: 15 June 2026
Sections engaged: 36(1)(va), 43B
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Two appeals (ITA Nos. 852-853/Ahd/2026) were filed by the assessee for Assessment Years 2020-21 and 2021-22. Per the source preview, the assessee's grounds challenged: (i) the making of a prima-facie adjustment on a debatable and contentious issue under Section 143(1)(a); and (ii) the CIT(A)'s confirmation of an addition of Rs.30,03,01,778/- on account of delay in payment of employees' PF and ESIC contribution, even when at the relevant time different High Courts had given contradictory judgments on the question.

12. Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Pentamedia Graphics Ltd

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 16 April 2026
Sections engaged: 10B, 80M, 43B
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai before the Madras High Court (Tax Case Appeal No. 632 of 2010) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench dated 24.03.2008 in ITA No.554/Mds/2007. Per the source preview, the respondent assessee had filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2003-04 on 01.12.2002; the case was selected for scrutiny, and since the aggregate value of international transactions exceeded Rs.5 crores, it was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer; the Assessing Officer thereafter computed taxable income after making various disallowances and adjustments, including in relation to consultancy charges.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Dominance of the PF/ESI disallowance question under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va). The single most recurring fact pattern across these rulings is the disallowance of employees' contributions to PF and ESI on the ground of delayed deposit. This issue appears in cases 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, and 11 (and is referenced indirectly in others), reflecting the widespread downstream litigation triggered by the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT.
CPC/intimation-stage disallowances generating downstream appeals. Multiple cases (cases 1, 3, 4, 7, and 10) arose from disallowances made at the CPC intimation or processing stage rather than from a regular scrutiny assessment, underscoring that Section 43B disputes are not confined to full assessments and frequently arise from automated CPC processing.
Rectification proceedings under Section 154 as a vehicle for Section 43B disputes. Cases 1 and 7 both arose from orders passed under Section 154 of the Act, indicating that assessees are pursuing the rectification route to challenge CPC-level disallowances of payments claimed to be deductible under Section 43B.
Multi-year consolidated appeals. Cases 10 and 11 both involved multiple assessment years being heard together, with three and two years respectively consolidated into a single hearing. This reflects the systemic and recurring nature of the Section 43B/Section 36(1)(va) dispute for many assessees across consecutive years.
Pre-Checkmate intimations being litigated post-Checkmate. As seen in case 10, intimations under Section 143(1)(a) issued in 2019 and 2020—before the Supreme Court's October 2022 judgment in Checkmate Services—are still being litigated at the ITAT level, raising questions about the retrospective applicability of the Supreme Court's ruling and the validity of prima-facie adjustments made at a time of judicial uncertainty.

How to use this compilation

This compilation provides structured metadata—bench, date, sections engaged, and outcome field—for twelve income-tax rulings touching Section 43B, drawn from the TaxNoticeAI legal corpus. Researchers should treat this index as a starting point only. Each ruling should be verified against the full text of the judgment as available on indiankanoon.org, the official ITAT website, or the relevant High Court portal before being cited or relied upon in any professional context. The text previews reproduced here are truncated and may not capture the full reasoning, directions, or operative order of the bench.

Researchers should also check whether any of these rulings have been subsequently stayed, reversed on further appeal, or distinguished by a coordinate or superior bench. ITAT rulings are subject to challenge before the relevant High Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, and High Court rulings may be appealed to the Supreme Court. The position on a given issue—particularly the Section 43B/Section 36(1)(va) interplay following Checkmate Services—may continue to evolve as further rulings are pronounced.

Finally, researchers dealing with matters involving statutory payments such as PF and ESI contributions should also review relevant CBDT circulars and press releases, which may clarify the department's administrative position on deductibility, timing, and the treatment of disallowances made prior to binding judicial pronouncements. No section of this article constitutes legal or tax advice, and all reliance on the rulings indexed here should be in conjunction with a review of the primary source materials.

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 43B & 36(1)(va) Income Tax: 12 ITAT and HC Rulings (2026)