“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)

Global Security Services, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 150/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Akshaya K.S., CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

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

Agarwalla Teakinternational (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Circle-1(2), Delhi

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

ITA 110/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Kanav Bali, Sr. DR

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

Appeal Centre has also erred both in law and on facts in upholding disallowance of Rs. 2,26,692/- by invoking provision of section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4 That even otherwise the adjustments so made in the intimation

M/S. Gunny Dealers Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Tech-1, Kolkata

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

ITA 1373/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1373/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/S Gunny Dealers Ltd…………………....................…...……………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aabcg0019R] Vs. Ito, Tech-1, Kolkata………….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 27, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.11.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Haye Considered That The Order U/S 143(3) Was Passed By An Authority Who Lacks Jurisdiction Over The Appellant & As Such, The Said Order Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Disallowance Of

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(3)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘बी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri

Thyssenkrupp Uhde India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1030/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Thyssenkrupp Uhde Deputy Commissioner Of India Private Limited Income Tax- 15(3)(1) Uhde House, Room No.460, Vs. 4Th Floor, L.B.S. Marg, Vikhroli (W.), Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai- 400083. M. K. Road, Pan: Aaacu1416H Mumbai- 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri M. M. Golvala A/W. Shri Hormuzd Jamshedji, A.R. Revenue By : Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. Cit), Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13 . 06 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26 . 06 . 2024 O R D E R Per : Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act [The ‘Act’ In Short] Vide Its Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-24/1059614356(1) Dated 11/01/2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2 M/S. Thyssenkrupp Uhde India Private Limited

For Appellant: Shri M. M. Golvala a/w. Shri HormuzdFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. CIT), SR. D.R

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

retain the 7 M/s. Thyssenkrupp Uhde India Private Limited 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 ... 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

Shriram Dadaji Matte, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 180/NAG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri R.K. GaneriwalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(3)Section 14A

income made the adjustment of ` 50,040, in the return of income on account of deemed income under section 36(1)(va) r/w section 2(24)(x) of the Act for the late deposit of employee’s contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC on the ground that these payments were ... 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

Shriram Dadaji Matte, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 179/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri R.K. GaneriwalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Supreme & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes as directed above

ITA 613/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.613/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Supreme & Co. Pvt. Ltd…………………………………...………....Appellant 53, Justice Chandra Madhav Road, West Bengal – 700020. [Pan: Aacca7232K] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ramesh Kr. Varma, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 24, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 02.02.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ld. Cit(Appeal) Erred In Making Disallowance Of Rs.85,23,450/- U/S 36(1)(Va) In Respect Of Delayed Deposits Of Pf. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(Appeal) Ought Not To Have Made Any Disallowance In Respect Of Delayed Deposit Of Pf The Same Having Been Deposited Before The Due Date Of Furnishing Of The Return Of Income. 3. For That The Disallowance Of Rs.85,23,450/- U/S 36(1)(Va) In Respect Of Delayed Deposit Of Pf Was Wrong & Uncalled For. 4. Cit(A) Has Upheld The Disallowance Of A.O.”

Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘बी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri

M/S. Rpl Projects Limited, Kolkata vs. A.D.I.T., CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 62/KOL/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 62/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Rpl Projects Limited Asstt. Director Of Income Tax, 24, Mangalam Building Vs Cpc, Bangalore 301, Hemant Basu Sarani Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaecr3350D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Bonnie Debbarma, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -21, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 25/11/2021, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For Assessment Year 2018- 19. 2. When The Case Was Called For Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. No Application For Adjournment Has Been Filed. Under These Circumstances, We Proceed To Adjudicate The Instant Appeal Ex- Parte Qua The Assessee, On The Basis Of Available Records & Hearing The Ld. D/R. 3. We Have Heard The Ld. D/R & Perused The Material Placed Before Us. The Sole Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Relating To The Disallowance Of Rs. 41,76,420/- Made By The Assessing Officer/Cpc

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Bonnie Debbarma, JCIT, Sr. D/R

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE

Marda Collections Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and further directions as per para 8 are issued to the AO

ITA 71/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri B. K. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 4Section 43B

2. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in holding that professional tax deducted from employees salary is deemed income under section 2(24)(x). 3. Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred in holding that unpaid professional tax deducted from employees salary is covered under 43B(a) of the Income

North India Lpg Cylinders Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Kolkata

ITA 249/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.249/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2017-18 North India Lpg Cylinders Ltd.………....................…...……………....Appellant 12 Government Place, East Esplanade, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aadcn8006B] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Kolkata….….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ashish Rastogi, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 21, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Delhi. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Appellant Company Did Not Get The Notice Served For Hearing Trom The Office Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Delhi. 3. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Delhi, Had Erred In Making Disallowances On Account Of Delayed Payment Of Provident Fund & Employees State Insurance Of Rs. 14,54,713/.

Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘ए’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri

Indiyaa Distribution Network LLP, Indore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Indore

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

ITA 258/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2018-19 Indiyaa Distribution Dy. Cit, Network Llp, 1(1), 11D, Sampat Farm, Indore. Opp.Agrawal Public बनाम/ School, Vs. Bicholi Mardana Road, Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aarfg1302N Assessee By Ms.Ruchira Singhal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2024

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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

Gaurav International, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 49(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3315/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3315/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Gaurav International Acit B-34, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Vs. Circle-49(1), Phase-1, West, New Delhi. Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. Pan No.Aaafg5920D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

sustaining the disallowance made in respect of employees contribution to PF & ESI u/s 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. I.T.A.No.3315/Del/2023 2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the written submissions contends that the contributions for the month of April, 2016 were deposited

Muniyallappa Bharathi, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3)(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands dismissed

ITA 841/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Subramanya Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 25oSection 36(1)(va)Section 43

additional evidences filed by both the assessees before us. 8.2 The ld. A.R. placed following arguments in respect of this contention: 2.1 “Section 2(24)(x) of the Act deems that the sums received by an assessee from his employees as contributions to any welfare fund, shall be treated ... same cannot be treated as the income of the assessee. Section 36(1)(va) provides a deduction of sums referred to in section 2(24)(x), if the such sum is credited by the assessee to the employee’s account in the relevant fund on or before the due date

DCIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi vs. Delhi Financial Corporation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1616/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri G.K. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Doi, Sr. DR

Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

Company received only Rs. 35,31,056/- as employees' contribution to Provident Fund and therefore, due to default in compliance of provisions of section 2(24)(x) read with section36(1)(va), there could have been maximum addition of the same amount i.e. Rs. 35,31,056/- 13. We have

Secunderabad Hotels Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 313/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.313/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Secunderabad Hotels (P) Vs. Income Tax Officer Limited Ward 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaics6896B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Joshi, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Joshi, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 139Section 36(1)(va)Section 436

ITA No 313 of 2024 Secunderabad Hotels P Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX

Oakton Global Technology Services Centre (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-16(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 309/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.309/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Oakton Global Technology Vs. Income Tax Officer Services Centre (India) (P) Ltd, Ward 16(3) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaaco8824H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravi Bhardwaj, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bhardwaj, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144(5)

ITA No 309 of 2017 Oakton Global Technology Services Centre India P Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ

C S Manjunath, Tumakuru vs. Income-Tax Officer, War-1 & Tps, Tumkur

ITA 171/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 139Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

view of the above express provisions of the EPF and ESI Acts, we are of the humble opinion that the provisions of sections 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va) are not applicable to the appellant as there is no basic liability fastened on the contractor or immediate employer ... stated that the Appellant is only an agent who collect employee benefits from the organizations/institutions and remits to the government. the provisions of sections 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va) are not applicable to the appellant as there is no basic liability fastened on the contractor or immediate employer

Chededeepu Srinivas, Hyderabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-14(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 209/HYD/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jun 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Reddy, AR appeared for Shri Santi Pavan Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 139(1)Section 234BSection 36Section 37

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

Ramzanali Asgar Khan, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 807/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Nayaz Pasha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

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

ITA Nos.806 & 807/Bang/2024 Ramzanali Asgar Khan, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI

Ramzanali Asgar Khan, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 806/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Nayaz Pasha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

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

ITA Nos.806 & 807/Bang/2024 Ramzanali Asgar Khan, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI