“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)

Kamarhatty Company Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-1(1), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1089/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad&Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

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

case, the Ld. CIT(A)- (c) NFAC erred in confirming the action of AO who invoked the provisions of section 43B read with section 2(24)(x) and 36(1 )(va) of the IT Act 1961 for alleged delay in depositing employee’s contribution to Provident Fund ... assessee and deem it fit to restore the issue of calculation of actual amount of disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act for delay in payment of employees contribution towards PF & ESI to the file of Ld. AO. We further direct the assessee

Zhongfu Mobile P.Ltd (Formerly Known As Oppo Mobiles (Telangana) P.Ltd), Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

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

ITA 1536/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Pawan Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR

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

dates under the relevant provisions of the Act. The Assessing Officer ruled that by virtue of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act, such sums received by the appellants constituted "income". It was held that those amounts could not have been allowed

Tiger 4 India Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 25(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 378/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

Tiger 4 India Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-25(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 377/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

Neptune Holidays Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 8(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 105/KOL/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.105/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2019-20 Neptune Holidays Pvt. Ltd.……........................…...……………....Appellant 3Rd Floor, 113/F, Maheshwartola Road, Kolkata – 700046. [Pan: Aaccn9754F] Vs. Ito, Ward-8(2), Kolkata…...…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Bonnine Debarma, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 07, 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 13.12.2022 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 & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit (Appeals) Was Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 11,76,344/- Made By A.O. At Cpc On Account Of Delay In Deposit Of Employees Contribution To P.F. & Esi While Processing The Return Of Income U/S 143(1) When In Fact Entire The Sum Was Paid Within The Due Dates Specified Under The Relevant Statues & Wrong Mention Of Dates In Tax Audit Report Were Duly Brought To The Notice Of Ld. Cit (Appeals).

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 80Section 80J

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘सी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA "ी संजय गग

Ranjit Paul, Kolkata vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 136/KOL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Girish Agrawal

Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

LiveLaw (SC) 838 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the disallowance is attracted u/s 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act in respect of late deposit of employees’ contribution to ESI&PF i.e. after the due date prescribed for such deposit

Orrionstars Innovattes P.Ltd, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward-5, Panipat

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 156/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Kul Bharat

Section 143Section 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

Orrionstars Innovates Private Limited, Haryana vs. ITO Ward 5, Panipat

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 155/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Kul Bharat

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

Bsc C&C Joint Venture, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-61(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2284/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 40Section 801A(4)(i)Section 80I

order Disallowance under section 36(1)(va) Rs. 1,08,85,080/- r.w. section 2(24)(x) Total assessed income Rs. 30,92,31,440/- 4.1 The AO negatived the claim of deduction under section 801A(4) of the Act. 4.2 The assessee filed objections before the Ld. Dispute Resolution

Nishant Security and Allied Services Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-18(3), Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1446/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. N. K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2017-18 Nishant Security & Allied Vs. Ito Services Private Limited Ward- 18 (3) Wz-98, A/1, Ring Road, Delhi Naraina, New Delhi-110028 Pan No.Aaccn3644A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Written Application Respondent By Sh. Vipul Kashyap, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 01/02/2024 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am:

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

Kaarya Facilities and Services Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-12(3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2309/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shouvik Kumar RoyFor Respondent: 14.12.2023

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

Kaarya Facilities and Services Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-12(3(1), Mum

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2308/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shouvik Kumar RoyFor Respondent: 14.12.2023

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

Kaarya Facilities and Services Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-12(3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2307/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shouvik Kumar RoyFor Respondent: 14.12.2023

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

Rajesh Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 44(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 580/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. G.S. Pannu & Sh. Anubhav Sharmarajesh Kumar Vs. Acit A-1/208, Rohtak Road, Circle 44(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aigpk8026L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. ANUBHAV

Concerto Software and Systems Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1854/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Concerto Software & Systems Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle 15(1)(2), Unit No. 311/312 313, Building 2, Sector Room No. 483, 4Th Floor, 1, Millenium Business Park, Mahape, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Navi Mumbai-400 710. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcc 4006 C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Dyaneshwar Patil (Employee on behalf of company)For Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL

Shree Stones Crusher, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 750/JPR/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

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

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl CIT-DR

Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)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 ... amounts for long periods. That Parliament intended to retain theseparate 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

M/S. the Kothari Wheels, Pune vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore, Banglore

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

ITA 1420/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA

Megha Yadav, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 2(5), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 448/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: None

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

relevant provisions of the Act. The Assessing Officer ruled that by virtue of Section 36(1)(va) read 2 Megha Yadav with Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act, such sums received by the appellants constituted "income". It was held that those amounts could not have been allowed

Jiwanram Sheoduttrai Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Range - 8, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 741/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)Section 36(1)Section 40Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘B’, KOLKATA [Before Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial

Sumangal Glass Pvt. Ltd., Bhachau vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2636/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 2636/Ahd/2017 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Sumangal Glass Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T, Plot No.617/1-618-620, Vs. Circle-4(1)(1), Nh-8A,Po.Samakhiyari Ahmedabad (Piprapati), Bhachau Taluka, Samakhiyari-370150. Pan: Aaics6992G

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah, with Shri Rushin Patel, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 194CSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, अहमदाबादनयायपीी IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ B’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI SIDDHARTHA