Timely Deposit Vs. Delayed Contribution Debate: Supreme Court to Examine Delhi HC Ruling on PF/ESI Deduction

A private sector company has challenged a Delhi HC’s order on PF/ESI contributions before the Supreme Court of India, raising a key issue of whether delayed employee contributions allow employer deduction. HC held deductions valid only if timely deposited. Conflicting views exist; the Supreme Court issued notice for further examination.

Woodland (Aero Club) Private Limited had filed a petition in the Supreme Court of India against the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT), challenging an order dated September 08, 2025, passed by the Delhi High Court in ITA No. 267/2023. The impugned order concerned the PF and ESI contributions by employees and employers.

During the hearing in ITA No. 267/2023, the Delhi High Court noted that employer contributions under Section 36(1)(iv) and employees’ contributions under Section 36(1)(va) (read with Section 2(24)(x)) are different and therefore should be treated separately. The Court further noted that the employees’ contributions from salaries are considered as income of the employee under Section 2(24)(x) and are held in trust by the employer. Deduction can only be claimed by the employer if such amounts are deposited on or before the legal deadline.

It was further noted that in the present case, the non-obstante clause in Section 43B cannot be applied to employees’ contributions, and the earlier cited judgements, such as Alom Extrusions, do not directly relate to the case.

Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act considers any employee contribution collected by the employer as income; on the other hand, Section 36(1)(va) permits employers to avail a deduction in case the contribution is credited into the employee’s bank account before the statutory deadline. The relevant PF or ESI rules determine the due date; usually, this deadline is 15 days from the month-end, plus 5 days of grace for PF.

In the present case, there were primarily two views clashing with each other. The Tax Department’s view is that the delayed deposit of employees’ contributions was treated as income, and as per Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, a deduction is only allowed to be claimed when the deposits are made on or before the statutory deadline. To support his claim, the department also cited several earlier judgments, including cases of Unifac Management, Gujarat State Road Transport, Merchem, B.S. Patel, and Popular Vehicles.

On the other hand, the assessee’s view is that there is no difference between employer and employee contributions. Further argued that Section 43B permits availing a deduction if deposits are made before filing the income tax return (ITR). To support its argument, the petitioner also cited several earlier judgments in cases of Aimil Ltd., Plamman HR, Nipso Polyfabriks, Sagun Foundry, Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak, Sabari Enterprises, and several others.

Due to these conflicting interpretations, the Supreme Court has issued notice and will examine the matter further.