← All Phrases

“Section 24(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 24Section 24(3)12 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 24(3) is Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (143 Taxmann.com 178), cited in 1,392 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 24(3)

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.

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.

CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd.
306 ITR 392 · 2008 · Supreme Court
577
citing judgments

The "Purpose Test" determines whether an incentive or subsidy is a capital or revenue receipt for income tax purposes. If the incentive's purpose is to enable an assessee to set up a new industry or make investments in capital assets, it is a capital receipt and not taxable.

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).

Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT
228 ITR 253 · 1997 · Supreme Court
429
citing judgments

A subsidy is treated as a revenue receipt if the assessee is free to use the money in its business as it likes and is not obligated to spend it for a specific capital purpose, such as acquiring assets or repaying loans.

CIT v. Vinay Cements Ltd.
213 CTR 268 · 2007 · Supreme Court
422
citing judgments

Employees' contributions to provident fund and ESI are allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) if deposited by the assessee before the due date for filing the income tax return.

Judgments citing Section 24(3)

Viacom 18, Media Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-8, Mumbai

ITA 2591/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agarwal/Ms. MokshaFor Respondent: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 32

against the profits of that year. A decision recorded by the ITO who computes the loss in the previous year under section 24(3) that the loss cannot be set off against the income of the subsequent year is not binding on the assessee

DCIT, Circle 4(2), New Delhi vs. Bansal Steels Power Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross

ITA 4891/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4891/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2018-19 बनाम Dcit, Bansal Steels Power Ltd. Circle 4(1), Vs. 35, Jhandewalan, Motia Khan, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aaacg1010F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Co No.230/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4891/Del/2024) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Bansal Steels Power Ltd. Dcit, 35, Jhandewalan, Motia Khan, Vs. Circle 4(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aaacg1010F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 2Section 79Section 79(2)(c)

ITA No.4891/Del/2024 & CO No.230/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD

Om Prakash Gupta, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT Central Circle -1, Jaipur

The appeals of the assessee are disposed off as under :

ITA 399/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR &
Section 115BSection 153ASection 69

placed reliance on the factual findings in Benami proceedings. The same are referred to Some of the initial pages of the order under section 24(3) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 dated 05.03.2019 are as under 6. On examination of the statement of the bank account

Om Prakash Gupta, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 396/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR &
Section 153ASection 69

placed reliance on the factual findings in Benami proceedings. The same are referred to Some of the initial pages of the order under section 24(3) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 dated 05.03.2019 are as under- 6. On examination of the statement of the bank account

Om Prakash Gupta, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT Central Circle -1, Jaipur

ITA 395/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR &
Section 153ASection 69

placed reliance on the factual findings in Benami proceedings. The same are referred to Some of the initial pages of the order under section 24(3) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 dated 05.03.2019 are as under- 6. On examination of the statement of the bank account

Sh. Kuldeep Srivastava, Mathura vs. I.T.O., Ward-3(2), Mathura

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 227/AGR/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 24(3)Section 257Section 68

said income was kept by them in deposit with the assesse. 2 | P a g e 2. The legal fiction created by section 24(3) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1965 by virtue of which the amount declared by the declarant was to be charged to Income

Society of the Congregation of Franciscan Brothers, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(E), Circle -2, Mumbai

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

ITA 4747/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Society Of The Congregation Of The Asst. Cit (E), Circle 2(1), Franciscan Brothers, Mtnl Building, Peddar Road, Vs. 1, Mount Poinsur, Borivali West, Mumbai-400026. Mumbai-400103. Pan No. Aaats 1005 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. N Jayendran
Section 11Section 24

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SUNIL

DCIT Central Circle-2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Asian Star Company Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2778/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S Asian Star Company Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(3) Room No.803, 8Th Floor, 114-C, Mitta Court, Pratishtha Bhavan, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaca4856B Assessee By : Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ms. Vaishali More, Ars Revenue By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2023

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143Section 148

have carefully gone through the submissions, both written and oral, from both the sides including the facts recorded in the SCN, orders under section 24(3), 24 (4), reference u/s replies by the defendants and the rejoinders by the Initiating Officer, the documents in the RUDs etc. On perusal ... given any justification for the passing of the provisional attachment order u/s 24(3). In this connection I must say the order under section 24(3) is purely interim in nature and once the order under section 2.4(4) is issued the significance is lost. Further, the said order

Kings Infra Ventures Ltd, Thevara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1 (2), Kochi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 25/COCH/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Apr 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainkings Infra Ventures Ltd. Asstt. Commissioner Of A-1, 1St Floor, Atria Apartment Income Tax, Opp. Gurudwara Temple Vs. Circle - 1(2) Perumanur Road Kochi Thevara, Kochi [Pan:Aaccv3411D] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By: Shri Joseph Markose, Sr. Advocate Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

against the profits of that year. A decision recorded by the ITO who computes the loss in the previous year under section 24(3) of the Act that the loss cannot be set off against the income of the subsequent year is not binding on the assessee.” In other words

Shri M A Khan, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 3(1), Bhopal

ITA 105/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) It(Ss)A Nos.37 To 42/Ind/2015 & Assessment Years: 2004-05 To 2010-11 Late M.A. Khan Acit 3(1) (Through L/H Nazhat Bhopal Parveen Khan) बनाम/ B-90, Housing Board, Vs. Kohefiza, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan:Aewpk 3620 C Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti & Shri Vijay Bansal, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL

ACIT (It) 3(1) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. J.P.Morgan Indian Investment Company Mauritius Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue becomes infructuous as dismissed

ITA 2382/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2382/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit-3(1)(1), M/S J. P. Morgan India R. No. 1628, 16Th Floor, Air Investment Company India Building, Nariman Mauritius Limited, बनाम/ Point, Mumbai-400 021 C/O- Srb & Associates Llp, Vs. 14Th Floor, The Ruby 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 028 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacf0626J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Cross Objection No. 41/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S J. P. Morgan India Acit-3(1)(1), Investment Company R. No. 1628, 16Th Floor, Air India Mauritius Limited, Building, Nariman Point, बनाम/ C/O- Srb & Associates Mumbai-400 021 Vs. Llp, 14Th Floor, The Ruby 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 028 (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Milind Chavan, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Anish Thacker, Ld. Ar सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 18.05.2022 & 23.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 27.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Milind Chavan, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Anish Thacker, Ld. AR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144C

case of CIT vs. Manmohan Das (deceased) (1996) 59 ITR 699 (SC) wherein it was held as under:- The ITO has under section 24 (3) to notify to the assessee the amount of loss as computed by him, If it is established in the course of assessment of the total ... against the profits of that year. A decision recorded by the ITO who computers the loss in the previous year under section 24(3) that the loss cannot be set off against the income of the subsequent year is not binding on the assessee. 11. Ld. DR has filed written

Sopariwala Exports, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 1271/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2011-12
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 148Section 23Section 24Section 24(3)

assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts as the assessee claimed expenses towards maintenance charges apart from claiming 30% deduction under section 24(3) of the Act towards maintenance and repairs which is not allowed as per the I.T Act. In response to the notice