← All Phrases

“Section 2(24)(x)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(24)(x)1,421 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 2(24)(x) is CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. (321 ITR 508), cited in 1,629 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 2(24)(x)

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.

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.

(i) CIT v. Merchem Ltd.
378 ITR 443 · 2015 · High Court
631
citing judgments

Belated remittance of employees' contribution to ESI and PF, even if deposited before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), is not allowed as a deduction. This disallowance falls under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x), as Section 43B applies only to employer's contributions.

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 citing Section 2(24)(x)

Amsal Chem Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT-4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2659/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankaramsal Chem Pvt. Limited V/S. Principal Commissioner Of 4G, Kakkad House, 4Th Floor, बनाम Income Tax(Pcit),Mumbai-4, Barrack Road, Marine Lines, Room # 629,Ayakar Bhawan, Mumbai - 400 020, Maharishi Karve Road, Maharashtra Mumbai - 400 020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaca3281G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, (Virtually appeared)For Respondent: Ms. Shabana Parveen, (CIT- DR)
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263

paid by the due date under relevant Acts, are not eligible for deduction. For employee’s contribution to PF/ESIC, there is specific deeming Section 2(24)(x) and allowability of deduction u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. The assessee had failed in fulfilling the condition of Section

Subodh Kumar Agarwal, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC Bangaluru, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 754/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am Subodh Kumar Agarwal Dy. Cit, Cpc Bengalore, 204, 2Nd Floor, Shokeen Plaza, Karnataka - 560 500 Vs. Plot No. 3, Pocket 7, Dwarka, Sector 12, New Delhi – 110 075 Pan/Gir No. Aabpa 7184 J (Assessee) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon
Section 143(1)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, AM Subodh

Ranar Agrochem Limited, Parawada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam

ITA 288/VIZ/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Aug 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.288/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15) Ranar Agrochem Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaccp0372M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M. Madhusudan, Ca (Hybrid) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sri Jenardhanan V, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 31/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 15/05/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “A.O.”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) Dated 30/12/2016 For A.Y.

For Appellant: Shri M. Madhusudan, CAFor Respondent: Sri Jenardhanan V, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 68

Court will hold and therefore the adjustment made u/s 143(1)(a)(iv) by applying provisions of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) is found to be valid and proper in fact and law. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case

Appt Fashion, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 28(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1972/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)(b)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC‘ BENCH DELHI BEFORE: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER APPT Fashion, Vs. The ACIT

Gurmeet Singh Hora, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 45/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Jul 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 45/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gurmeet Singh Hora A-1, Sai Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaoph6268D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Center (Cpc), Bengaluru ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH

M/S. Kamakshi Jute Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 3151/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

vehemently wrong and unjustified in confirming the addition of Rs. 31,91,258/- made by the Ld. A.O. invoking the provision of section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) for the Employees the alleged delay in depositing Contribution to PF & ESI under the relevant Act. Relief Claimed: the addition ... besides interest of ₹7,945/- thereon. Accordingly, the Ld. AO disallowed the above sum u/s 36(1)(va) r.w. section 2(24)(x) of the Act on the ground that the payments were made after the due date of depositing it to the Government account and the same

Accurate Buildcon, Rajkot vs. DCIT, CC-1, Rajkot

ITA 770/RJT/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessee firm from its employees Page 3 of 15 ITA No. 766 to 770/Rjt/2024 Accurate Buildcon to which the provisions of section 2(24)(x) apply, is credited by the assessee to the employee's account in the provident fund after the due date by which the assessee-firm

Accurate Buildcon, Rajkot vs. DCIT, CC-1, Rajkot

ITA 769/RJT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessee firm from its employees Page 3 of 15 ITA No. 766 to 770/Rjt/2024 Accurate Buildcon to which the provisions of section 2(24)(x) apply, is credited by the assessee to the employee's account in the provident fund after the due date by which the assessee-firm

Accurate Buildcon, Rajkot vs. DCIT, CC-1, Rajkot

ITA 768/RJT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessee firm from its employees Page 3 of 15 ITA No. 766 to 770/Rjt/2024 Accurate Buildcon to which the provisions of section 2(24)(x) apply, is credited by the assessee to the employee's account in the provident fund after the due date by which the assessee-firm

Accurate Buildcon, Rajkot vs. DCIT, CC-1, Rajkot

ITA 767/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessee firm from its employees Page 3 of 15 ITA No. 766 to 770/Rjt/2024 Accurate Buildcon to which the provisions of section 2(24)(x) apply, is credited by the assessee to the employee's account in the provident fund after the due date by which the assessee-firm

Accurate Buildcon, Rajkot vs. DCIT, CC-1, Rajkot

ITA 766/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessee firm from its employees Page 3 of 15 ITA No. 766 to 770/Rjt/2024 Accurate Buildcon to which the provisions of section 2(24)(x) apply, is credited by the assessee to the employee's account in the provident fund after the due date by which the assessee-firm

Zaheer Ahmed Syed, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., CC-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 410/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80G

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘बी’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad “B” Bench, Hyderabad श्री विजय

Kaushal Kumar, Raniganj vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Asansol

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2619/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 43B

court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.” 5.8 Therefore, under the provisions of section 2(24)(x) of the Act, the contributions from employees are, firstly treated as deemed income and subject to tax in the hand of the employer ... appellant but contributions collected from the employees is obligatory in nature and is considered as deemed income as per provisions of the section 2(24)(x) of the Act. Therefore, in view of the above discussions, the AO is directed to make addition of Rs.22,89,194/- in appellant

Kaushal Kumar, Raniganj vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Asansol

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2618/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 43B

court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.” 5.8 Therefore, under the provisions of section 2(24)(x) of the Act, the contributions from employees are, firstly treated as deemed income and subject to tax in the hand of the employer ... appellant but contributions collected from the employees is obligatory in nature and is considered as deemed income as per provisions of the section 2(24)(x) of the Act. Therefore, in view of the above discussions, the AO is directed to make addition of Rs.22,89,194/- in appellant

Kankariya Automobiles Pvt Ltd, Ahilyanagar vs. ITO Ward-1, Ahilyanagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1932/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Mhealth Ventures India P Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir-15(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6175/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2016-17 Mhealth Ventures India Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Ltd., Of Income Tax Circle 729H Raj Legacy, Lbs Marg, Vs. 15(2) (2), Andheri, Mumbai – 400083. Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Pan – Aagcm9200P Karve Road, Mumbai – 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Viraj Mehta, Ca (Virtually Appeared) Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.07.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessing Officer, Vide Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Has Made The Additions Of Rs.3,41,84,927/- & Rs.27,410/- Respectively Under Section 56(2)(Vii)(B) & Section 2(24)(X) As Deemed Income & Added The Same To The Income Of The Assessee. 2 Mhealth Ventures India Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, SR. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

made the additions of Rs.3,41,84,927/- and Rs.27,410/- respectively under section 56(2)(vii)(b) and section 2(24)(x) as deemed income and added the same to the income of the Assessee. 2 Mhealth Ventures India Pvt. Ltd. 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, though challenged

Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmebabad vs. Techno Industries, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 660/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyaltechno Industries, Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Plot No. 613, Phase Iv, Income-Tax, Gidc, Vatva, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad-382 245 Ahmedabad [Pan : Aacft 1503 D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Respondent By: Shri Abhijit, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 22.01.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)” For Short), Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short), Relating To The Assessment Year 2017- 18. 2. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “(1) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs 1,03,00,000/- Made By Ao On Account Of Unsecured Loan Received From Various Lenders U/S. 68 Of It Act, Despite The Fact That The Assessee Had Not Corroborative Evidences Identity Genuineness/Creditworthiness Of The Lenders During Assessment Establish The Proceedings. (2) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Admitting The Additional Evidences During Appellate Proceedings, Without Giving The Opportunity To The Ao As Required By Rule 46A.. (3) The Ld. Cita) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,66,037/- Made By Ao On Account Of Disallowance Of Interest On Unsecured Loans Paid To Lenders, Despite The Fact That The Assessee Had Not Dcit Vs. Techno Industries Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 2–

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Kota Trucks P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 14(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2050/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Kota Trucks P. Ltd. Vs. Acit Bg-223, Sanjay Gandhi Circle -14(2) Transport Nagar, Gt New Delhi Karnal Road, New Delhi- 110042 Pan No.Aadck3550H Appellant Respondent Appellant Sh. Pratap Gupta, Ca (Virtual) Respondent Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr

Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

crucial. The former forms part of the employers’ income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of Section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee ... could be held as the income of the appellant/assessee under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act of 1961 or not or whether it is subject to the provisions contained in Section 43-B of the of the Act of 1961, was highly debatable

O.K. Auto Components Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s)

ITA 3584/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)

consequence of above-stated discussion, the prima facie disallowance of impugned contribution towards ESI and EPF under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act of 1961 made by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(1)(a) by order dated 16.12.2021 is hereby set-aside

Fujiyama Power Systems, Parwanoo vs. ITO Parwanoo, Parwanoo

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, and the penalty of Rs

ITA 977/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)Section 68

interest of Rs. 15,300/-; (iii) Addition of Rs. 35,62,089/- on account of delayed payment of employees’ contribution to PF under section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va); (iv) Addition of Rs. 4,79,88,545/- on account of mismatch of income as per Form