“Section 2(24)(x)”

ACIT 6(3), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Grasim Industries Ltd ( Corporate Finance Division), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

long periods. That Parliament intended to retain the separate character of these two amounts, is evident from the use of different language. Section 2(24)(x) too, deems amount received from the employees (whether the amount is received from the employee or by way of deduction authorized by the statute

Genesys International Corporation Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC Bangalore, Bangaloe

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

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

approach indicated in the ruling in Alom Extrusions. As noticed previously, Alom Extrutions did not consider the fact of the introduction of Section 2(24)(x) or in fact the other provisions of the Act. 52. When Parliament introduced the amendments in 1988-89, inserting Section ... long periods. That Parliament intended to retain the separate character of these two amounts, is evident from the use of different language. Section 2(24)(x) too, deems amount received from the employees (whether the amount is received from the employee or by way of deduction authorized by the statute

Zenith Dyeintermediates Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principle CIT-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

received by the assessee from its employees as contribution to any such employees, is income in the hands of the assessee as per section 2(24)(x) of the I.T. Act and the same is allowable as a deduction u/s.36(1)(va), only if it is paid to the relevant ... aforesaid belated payments of employee's contribution towards PF & ESIC are considered as income of the assessee in view section 2(24)(x) r.w.s.36(1)(va). However, it is seen from the computation of income that assessee has not added back the above payments in its computation of income. Further

Capacite Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT/DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

Bench: SHRI AMRJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

respect of disallowance of INR.23,67,555/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act in respect of employee’s contribution to the Provident Fund (PF) and Employee State Insurance Corporation (ESI) which was deposited belatedly ... only if the deposit is made by the employer on or before the due date specified in the applicable statute in view of Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The non- obstante clause under Section 43B or anything contained in therein would

Capacite Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT/DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

Bench: SHRI AMRJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

respect of disallowance of INR.1,57,53,261/-, made under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act. The appeal preferred by the Assessee challenging the levy of the aforesaid penalty was dismissed by the CIT(A) vide order, dated 15/10/2024. Being aggrieved the Assessee ... only if the deposit is made by the employer on or before the due date specified in the applicable statute in view of Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The fact that employees’ contribution towards PF/ESI has been made before the due date

Diebold Nixdorf India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Diebold Systems Private Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am

Thus, he treated such contribution made towards PF & ESIC as ‘income of the assessee’ in terms with section 2(24)(x) of the Act and added an amount of Rs.1,66,084/- to the income of the assessee. Though, the assessee contested the aforesaid addition before learned first appellate authority

Diebold Nixdorf India Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am

Thus, he treated such contribution made towards PF & ESIC as ‘income of the assessee’ in terms with section 2(24)(x) of the Act and added an amount of Rs.1,66,084/- to the income of the assessee. Though, the assessee contested the aforesaid addition before learned first appellate authority