← 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)

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

ITA 569/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

Abbott Healthcare Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, Ground No. 3 with its Sub-Grounds is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2756/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalabbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. 3, Corporate Park, Sion Trombay Road, Mumbai - 400 071 Pan: Aaack3935D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent & Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 43B

separately dealt with in different clauses of section 36(1). All these establish that Parliament, while introducing section 36(1) (va) along with section 2(24) (x), was aware of the distinction between the two types of contributions. There was a statutory classification, under the IT Act, between ... 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

Virendra Singh Saini, Haryana vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore, Bengalore

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

ITA 1483/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Pune19 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1483/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Rajpurohit
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं

Gandhar Oil Refinery (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. CC 5(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3889/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalgandharoilrefinery(India)Ltd., Acit, Cc-5(1), Vs. 18Th Floor, Dlh Park, Sv Air India Building Road, Goregaon (West), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400062.. Pan/Gir No. Aaacg3996J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 35Section 36(2)

disallowing the deduction claimed amounting to Rs. 17,278/- on account of delay in payment of contribution to ESI by invoking provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case

ACIT Corp Circle 1 (1), Chennai vs. M/S Amtex Info Solutions Pvt Ltd, Chennai

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

ITA 546/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.546/Chny/2018 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Amtex Info Solutions Pvt. Tax, Vs. Ltd., Plot No.54, 27Th Street, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai. Sri Krishna Nagar, Maduravoyal, Chennai – 600 095. [Pan: Aaica 6676K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथH की ओर से/ Assessee By : None JkथH की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G. Suresh. Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M : Aforesaid Appeal Filed By The Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-, Chennai [Hereinafter “Cit(A)”] Dated 12.12.2017 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By The Assessing Officer [A.O] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 30.03.2016. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh. JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

National Travel Services cited supra. 3.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made u/s.36(1) (va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the I.T. Act to the tune of Rs.1,05,750/-, towards non-payment of employees part of contribution ... dates, as specified in the respective Acts, and such unpaid employees contributions are liable for disallowance U/s. 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24) (x) of the Act?. 3.3 The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

Norben Tea & Exports Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 4(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 833/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra]

Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

Provident Fund Act. The contribution works out to Rs. 13,30,802/- which was deposited later and in view of the provision of section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va) a sum of Rs. 13,30,802/- was treated as the assessee’s income and added back ... unless the amount is deposited in time, it will not be allowed as a deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. Section 2(24)(x) defines the income wherein any sum received by the assessee from his employees as contributions to any provident fund or superannuation fund

M/S. Bindhya Bashini Traders, Liluah, Howrah vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 32, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed and the order of the Ld

ITA 1144/KOL/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Bindhya Bashini Traders, Circle – 32, Kolkata, 268/10, Narayani Complex, Aayakar Bhawan, 110, Vs G.T. Road, Liluah - 711204 Middletown Row, (Pan: Aagfb2388A) Kolkata - 700071 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Miraj D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Amuldeep Kaur, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

separately dealt with in different clauses of Section 36 (1). All these establish that Parliament, while introducing Section 36(1)(va) along with Section 2(24)(x), was aware of the distinction between the two types of contributions. There was a statutory classification, under the IT Act, between ... income tax, the deduction was available. A reading of the judgment in Alom Extrusions, would reveal that this court, did not consider Sections 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va). Furthermore, the separate provisions in Section 36(1) for employers' contribution and employees' contribution, too went unnoticed. • When Parliament introduced

M/S. Bindhya Bashini Traders, Liuah, Howrah vs. DCIT, Circle - 32, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed and the order of the Ld

ITA 1143/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Bindhya Bashini Traders, Circle – 32, Kolkata, 268/10, Narayani Complex, Aayakar Bhawan, 110, Vs G.T. Road, Liluah - 711204 Middletown Row, (Pan: Aagfb2388A) Kolkata - 700071 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Miraj D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Amuldeep Kaur, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

separately dealt with in different clauses of Section 36 (1). All these establish that Parliament, while introducing Section 36(1)(va) along with Section 2(24)(x), was aware of the distinction between the two types of contributions. There was a statutory classification, under the IT Act, between ... income tax, the deduction was available. A reading of the judgment in Alom Extrusions, would reveal that this court, did not consider Sections 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va). Furthermore, the separate provisions in Section 36(1) for employers' contribution and employees' contribution, too went unnoticed. • When Parliament introduced

Sanjiv Prakashan, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 9/JPR/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2020-2021
For Appellant: Sh. Anil Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

case. 2. The learned AO has erred in disallowing a sum of Rs. 16,46,879/- under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) and the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the said disallowance. 3. That the assessee craves his right to add, alter, amend ... different senses, in the relevant deduction clauses. The differentiation is also evident from the fact that 'earlier, Section 36(1)(va) along with Section 2(24)(x), was aware of the distinction between the two types of contributions. There was a statutory classification under the IT Act, between

Dilip Verma, Gurugram vs. Income Tax Officerward1(4)Gurgaon, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1285/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. M. Balaganeshita Nos. 1284 & 1285/Del/2024 (Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20) Dilip Verma Vs. Ito 902, Ramses Tower, Ward – 1(4), Omaxe The Nile, Sector-49, Gurgaon Sohna Road, Gurugram Haryana – 122 018 Pan No. Aahpv 4660 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By -Na- Revenue By Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2024 Order Per M. Balaganesh:

Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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

Dilip Verma, Gurugram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(4), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1284/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. M. Balaganeshita Nos. 1284 & 1285/Del/2024 (Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20) Dilip Verma Vs. Ito 902, Ramses Tower, Ward – 1(4), Omaxe The Nile, Sector-49, Gurgaon Sohna Road, Gurugram Haryana – 122 018 Pan No. Aahpv 4660 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By -Na- Revenue By Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2024 Order Per M. Balaganesh:

Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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

Tgv Projects and Investments Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 491/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.491/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Tgv Projects & Vs. Income Tax Officer Investments (P) Ltd Ward – 2 ( 3 ) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaact8340H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.K. Gupta, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20/08/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 44A

ITA No 491 of 2024 TVG Projects and Investments P Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Nagpur vs. M/S Gondwana Engineers Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 111/NAG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 36Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY

Manojit Choudhury, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-30(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 753/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.753/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA डॉ. मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य के सम" Before Dr. Manish

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Napc Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

ITA 623/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 623/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1) No. 46, M.G. Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : V. : Shri. : Shri. : 01.07.2024 : 14.08.2024 Napc Pvt Ltd., No.3, 6Th Floor, Apex Plaza, Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam – 600 034. [Pan: Aaccn-3625-P] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) V. Nandakumar, Cit T. Banusekar, Advocate & Shri. Suraj Nahar, Ca आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19, For The

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 41(1)Section 43C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी 'न्यायपीठ,चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. M2K Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6725/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhasstt. Yr: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 24Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai vs. Evita Construction Pvt. Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 3914/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dcit, Central Circle-1(2) Evita Construction Pvt. Limited 906, Pratishtha Bhavan, 514, Dalal Tower 211, Vs. Old Cgo Building, M K Road, Fpj Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aabce 7779 C (Assessee) : (Respondent) : Shri Pradip Kapasi Assessee By Respondent By : Shri P. D. Chougule : 16.05.2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 12.08.2024

For Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B R BASKARAN, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. Add/Joint/Deputy/ACIT, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, ground no. 1 raised by the revenue is

ITA 569/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaand

For Appellant: Shri Biswanath Das, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Faroog Irani, Ld. AR
Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)(ii)Section 36(2)(viia)

date of filing of return but after the due date of the relevant Act are eligible for deduction, under the provisions of section 2(24) (x) read with section 36(1) (va) of the Act. 19 ITA Nos.4056/Mum/2023 & Others M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 3. The CIT (A) erred ... before due date of filing of Return of Income as prescribed under Act, same would be allowed under section 43B, read with sections 2(24)(x) and 36(1) (va) of the Act. d. Till the time, the employee links the Aadhaar with UAN the, the appellant being employer

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 1 raised by the revenue is

ITA 4056/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaand

For Appellant: Shri Biswanath Das, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Faroog Irani, Ld. AR
Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)(ii)Section 36(2)(viia)

date of filing of return but after the due date of the relevant Act are eligible for deduction, under the provisions of section 2(24) (x) read with section 36(1) (va) of the Act. 19 ITA Nos.4056/Mum/2023 & Others M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 3. The CIT (A) erred ... before due date of filing of Return of Income as prescribed under Act, same would be allowed under section 43B, read with sections 2(24)(x) and 36(1) (va) of the Act. d. Till the time, the employee links the Aadhaar with UAN the, the appellant being employer

Guardian India Operations Private Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT 1, Chennai

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

ITA 842/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Ashik ShahFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, IRS,CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

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 Section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer ... 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