← 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)

Manisha Agri Biotech Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 500/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.491, 493, 500 & 501/Hyd/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Manisha Agri Biotech Dcit/Acit Private Ltd. Vs. Circle-16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaccm7108C] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.45/Hyd/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Vs. Manisha Agri Biotech Dcit, Circle-16(2) Hyderabad Private Ltd., Hyderabad [Pan :Aaccm7108C] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent धििााररती द्वारा/Assessee By: None राजस्‍व द्वारा/Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit,Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 23/10/2024 आदेश / Order Per Bench: These Cross Appeals Are Filed By Manisha Agri Biotech Private Ltd., (“The Assessee”) & The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved With The Separate

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT,DR
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR

Manisha Agri Biotech Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 493/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.491, 493, 500 & 501/Hyd/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Manisha Agri Biotech Dcit/Acit Private Ltd. Vs. Circle-16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaccm7108C] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.45/Hyd/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Vs. Manisha Agri Biotech Dcit, Circle-16(2) Hyderabad Private Ltd., Hyderabad [Pan :Aaccm7108C] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent धििााररती द्वारा/Assessee By: None राजस्‍व द्वारा/Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit,Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 23/10/2024 आदेश / Order Per Bench: These Cross Appeals Are Filed By Manisha Agri Biotech Private Ltd., (“The Assessee”) & The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved With The Separate

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT,DR
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR

Manisha Agri Biotech Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 491/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.491, 493, 500 & 501/Hyd/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Manisha Agri Biotech Dcit/Acit Private Ltd. Vs. Circle-16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaccm7108C] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.45/Hyd/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Vs. Manisha Agri Biotech Dcit, Circle-16(2) Hyderabad Private Ltd., Hyderabad [Pan :Aaccm7108C] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent धििााररती द्वारा/Assessee By: None राजस्‍व द्वारा/Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit,Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 23/10/2024 आदेश / Order Per Bench: These Cross Appeals Are Filed By Manisha Agri Biotech Private Ltd., (“The Assessee”) & The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved With The Separate

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT,DR
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR

DCIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Manisha Agri Biotech Private Limited, R.R.Dist

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 45/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.491, 493, 500 & 501/Hyd/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Manisha Agri Biotech Dcit/Acit Private Ltd. Vs. Circle-16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaccm7108C] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.45/Hyd/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Vs. Manisha Agri Biotech Dcit, Circle-16(2) Hyderabad Private Ltd., Hyderabad [Pan :Aaccm7108C] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent धििााररती द्वारा/Assessee By: None राजस्‍व द्वारा/Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit,Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 23/10/2024 आदेश / Order Per Bench: These Cross Appeals Are Filed By Manisha Agri Biotech Private Ltd., (“The Assessee”) & The Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved With The Separate

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT,DR
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR

Aptiv Connection Systems India Private Limited, Kochi, Kerala vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Ernakulam, Kerala

ITA 749/COCH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

circumstances of the case, the action of AG of adding the employees' share of PF to total income of the appellant under Section 2(24)(x) of the Act is bad in law. The NFAC has also erred in upholding the said addition. 3. That in view of the facts

Aptiv Connection Systems India Private Limited, Kochi, Kerala vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi, Kerala

ITA 736/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

circumstances of the case, the action of AG of adding the employees' share of PF to total income of the appellant under Section 2(24)(x) of the Act is bad in law. The NFAC has also erred in upholding the said addition. 3. That in view of the facts

Aptiv Connection Systems India Private Limited, Kochi, Kerala vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi, Ernakulam, Kerala

ITA 735/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

circumstances of the case, the action of AG of adding the employees' share of PF to total income of the appellant under Section 2(24)(x) of the Act is bad in law. The NFAC has also erred in upholding the said addition. 3. That in view of the facts

Thamanna, Mysore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income, Circle-2(1), Mysore

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

ITA 1188/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

paid within due date provided under the respective statutes, it has to be treated as income of the concerned assessee under section 2(24)(x) of the Act. In accordance with the statutory provision, the departmental authorities have made the disallowances. 7. The assessee has contested the disallowance broadly ... section 36(1)(va) makes it clear that in respect of any sum received by an assessee from his employees, to which section 2(24)(x) applies, the assessee can get deduction only if such sum is credited to the employees' accounts in the relevant fund or funds

Everest Human Resource Consultants, New Delhi vs. ITO, Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2191/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareeka.Yr. : 2019-20 Everest Human Resource Consultants, Vs. Ito, Ward 44(1), Room No. 102, Rzf1/382, Gali No. 2, Civic Centre, Palam Dabri Road, Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi New Delhi -110 045 (Pan: Aaffe2184A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Lal Verma, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

2 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

Ramesh Bros. Engineering Corporation, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 30(1), Kolkata

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1745/KOL/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy]

Section 143(1)Section 36

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “एसएमसी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH: KOLKATA कुमार" मधु

Adani Electricity Mumbai Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The AO, CPC, Banglore (Jurisdictional AO : the Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1)), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 543/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied." Further, Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that the legal definition under Section 2(24)(x) includes employee contributions as Adani Electricity Mumbai Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2019-20 - 4– part of income, allowing a corresponding deduction when such payments

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda vs. M/S. Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 741/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 712/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

Arihant Retail Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT-1, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1308/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1308/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Arihant Retail Private Limited, Principal Commissioner Of 29, Namachivaya Chetty Street, V. Income Tax -1, Old Washermanpet, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 021. [Pan: Aaics-3648-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024

For Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 69C

been deposited by the due dates prescribed as per the provisions of the Employee's State Insurance Act. As per the proviso to section 2(24)(x) the employee's contribution to PF/ESIC shall be treated as deemed income if the same is not paid within the due date

Amar Pratap Steels Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-7(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 108/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

M/S. Sultanpur Zilla Sahkari Bank Ltd., Sultanpur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Faizabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 647/LKW/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.-2015-16 M/S Sultanpur Zilla Sahkari Bank Pr. Cit, Faizabad Ltd., Near Collectorate, Allahabad Vs. Road, Civil Lines, Sultanpur, U.P. Pan:Aanas6008C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. J.L. Yadav, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Mazhar Akram, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Sh. J.L. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mazhar Akram, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263

appropriate authority but retained it with itself .As he was of the view that the same should have been treated as income under section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in his opinion, the order of assessment dated 20.12.2017 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest ... section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and rendered the said amount as income liable to be taxed under section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The failure of the ld. Assessing Officer to take note of these entries in the audited 6 A.Y-2015-16

Pragati Green Meadows and Resorts Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 117/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Hon'Bleआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.116 & 117/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Pragati Green Meadows Vs. Dy. C. I. T. & Resorts Ltd Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaccp5283H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B. Balakrishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

ITA Nos 116 and 117 of 2023 Pragati Green Meadows and Resorts Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ

Pragati Green Meadows and Resorts Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 116/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Hon'Bleआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.116 & 117/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Pragati Green Meadows Vs. Dy. C. I. T. & Resorts Ltd Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaccp5283H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B. Balakrishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

ITA Nos 116 and 117 of 2023 Pragati Green Meadows and Resorts Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Megha Engineering and Infrastructures Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1499/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2020-21 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S.Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaecm7627A

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 14ASection 80I

beyond the due dates specified under respective statue is not allowable as deduction under Section 36(1)(va) read with 43B, read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 17. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services ... beyond the due date specified under the respective Act, cannot be allowed as deduction under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) and this fact has been accepted by the Ld.A.R. for the assessee. However, the Ld.A.R. for the assessee referred to the due date for payment

Sankalp Recreation Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 576/AHD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR &
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 36(1)(va)Section 69C

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ “डी“,अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ D ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD "ी टी.आर. से""ल