← 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)

Lycos Internet Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1769/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, СА
Section 14ASection 249(4)(a)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

ITA Nos 1550 and 1769 LYCOS Internet Ltd आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Lycos Internet Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1550/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1550/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Lycos Internet Ltd Income Tax, Circle 16 (1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaacl5827B (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1769/Hyd/2018 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Lycos Internet Ltd Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Circle 16 (1) Pan:Aaacl5827B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/01/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Are Two Appeals, One By The Department Against The Order Dated 23/06/2017 Of The Learned Cit (A) & Another By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 26/02/2018 Passed

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT(DR)
Section 14ASection 263

ITA Nos 1550 and 1769 LYCOS Internet Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

Smt. Usha Sharma, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 480/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Eagle Hunter Solutions Vs Commissioner Of Income Limited Tax (Appeals)-25 61C, Kalu Sarai, Sarvapriya New Delhi Vihar, New Delhi-110016 Pan: Aabce0565E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 270A(2)Section 270A(2)(a)Section 36(1)

28/11/2024 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2020-21. 2.Grounds taken in this appeal are as under: “1. Disallowance as per the provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w. section 36(1) (va)- The Assessment Unit Income Tax Department has erred in law as well as on facts in adding ... 2,27,08,114/- as per the provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w. section 36(1) (va) on account of delayed payment of employee contribution towards PF/ESI. 2 Eagle Hunter Solutions Ltd. Vs. CIT(A) 2. Penalty Proceedings initiated u/s 270A(2)(a)- The Assessment Unit Income Tax Department

Shyamal Kundu, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 32(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1112/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'सी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C' BENCH, KOLKATA श्री संजय

Canpac Trends Pvt. Ltd., Bavla vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 271/AHD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.271/Ahd/2021 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2017-18 Canpac Trends Pvt.Ltd. Plot No.338, Chiyada Village : Chiyada B/H. Jerala Gidc Ahmedabad – 382 220 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabcv 9858 M बनाम / V/S. The Acit Circle-1(1)(2) Ahmedabad (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By : -None- Revenue By : Dr. Sanjay Lal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: : 16/01/2025 20/01/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre - Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)"], Dated 25/08/2021, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao"], Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"], For The Assessment Year 2017-18.

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Dr. Sanjay Lal, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

were deposited before the due date for filing the return under Section 139(1), the AO disallowed the claim, citing the provisions of Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va). (ii) Addition under Section 56(2)(viib): • The assessee issued 7,85,000 shares at a face

Shree Shivam Attires Pvt. Ltd., Durg vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bhilai

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

ITA 111/RPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 111/Rpr/2021 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Yash Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

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 8 other provisions of the Act. 52. When Parliament introduced Section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only ... 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Bhawani Construction Pvt. Ltd., Howrah

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

ITA 1649/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 264Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “ए’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार

Silver Oak Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT-6, Pune

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

ITA 2589/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Miss Aarti ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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

M/S. Tamilnadu Transmission Corpn. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2040/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2794/Chny/2019 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2040/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Tamilnadu Transmission Corp. Ltd. Acit बनाम #144, Npkrr Maligai, Anna Salai, Corporate Circle-3(1), / Vs. Chennai-600 002. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aadct-4780-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31-12-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी एबी टी

Tamilnadu Transmission Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2794/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2794/Chny/2019 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2040/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Tamilnadu Transmission Corp. Ltd. Acit बनाम #144, Npkrr Maligai, Anna Salai, Corporate Circle-3(1), / Vs. Chennai-600 002. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aadct-4780-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31-12-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी एबी टी

R K Swamy Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1427/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1427/Chny/2024 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri L.Shibi, C.A HIFor Respondent: Shri Phanidharan, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, supra, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court after interpreting section 36(1)(va) of the Act and :- 6 -: section 2(24)(x) of the Act has held that employees contribution of PF/ESI can be allowed as deduction only, if it had been paid within

R.K.Electricals, Kota vs. ITO, WD-2(4), Kota

12. In view of the above discussion, this appeal deserves to be dismissed

ITA 333/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k

DCIT, Ghaziabad vs. M/S. Devidayal Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3850/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M.B.Power (Madhya Pradesh) Vs Dcit, Ltd., 239, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-2, Estate, Nehru Place, Gurgaon Delhi -110019. Pan-Aafcm6698A Appellant Respondent

Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

ITA No.3850/Del/2023 & Others IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “E” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Condor Footwear (India) Limited, Surat vs. The PCIT, Surat-1, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 336/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.336/Srt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Condor Footwear (India) Limited, Vs. The Pcit – 1, Plot No. A-5/3, Road No.10, Main Surat Gate No.2, Hojiwala Industrial Esta, Vanz, Surat, B.O. - 394230 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacc9540N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07/01/2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(a)Section 80G

allowable. Further, assessee had paid Rs.8,79,551/- received from employees to the provident fund of superannuation fund mentioned in section 2(24)(x) of the Act after the due date. Such amount had to be disallowed u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court

All Services Global Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6083/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice Preisident & Smt. Renu Jauhriall Services Global Pvt. V/S. Dcit, Circle 4(1)(1), Ltd. बनाम Mumbai Ag 3. Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai Estate, Village Pahadi, Maharashrra-400001 Near Hub Mall, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaeca7278D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Kapil SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia
Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) contribution and Employees' Provident Fund (EPF) contribution during the year from Form 3CD. Ld. AO invoked the provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) to hold that the assessee company had defaulted in making the payment by the due date and, therefore, disallowed

Rajesh Choudhary, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Central Circle, Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 597/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf

Shri Mukesh Rasiklal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-9, Now Circle-4(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 3218/AHD/2015[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Dec 2024AY 1993-94

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh R. Shah – Party in personFor Respondent: Shri Karun Kant Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153Section 250

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

Shri Mukesh Rasiklal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-9, Now Circle-4(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 3217/AHD/2015[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Dec 2024AY 1992-93

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh R. Shah – Party in personFor Respondent: Shri Karun Kant Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153Section 250

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

Pink City Jewel House Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur

ITA 598/JPR/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Ranka, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Saurav Harsh, Adv.&
Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144oSection 14ASection 263Section 69

ITA No. 598/JP/2024 Pinkcity Jewelhouse Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

Kiri Industries Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1513/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumarshri Tr Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 234ASection 270ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR.BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI TR SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER