“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)

Reliance Smsl Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

ITA 1726/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair, Sr. A.R

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

account of PF after due 4 M/s. Reliance SMSL Limited date prescribed under the Act under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act but certainly before the due date of filing the return. 7. It is also not in dispute that the assessee company

Yudo Hot Runners India Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi Present Juridiction the Dy.CIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 670/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(2)(b)

Rs.68,36,426/- as well as addition Assessment Year: 2015-16 Page 2 of 4 under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act towards late payment of Employees Provident Fund and ESI contribution amounting to Rs.3,74,382/-. Assessment Order was passed under Section ... deleted the disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act and confirmed the addition under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act. After taking cognisance of the assessee’s submissions, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.1,21,467/- thereby stating that

M/S. Deepak Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 467/KOL/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234CSection 36(1)(va)Section 43(1)Section 43A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘C’, KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial

Ansal Housing Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 438/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaansal Housing Ltd, Vs. Acit, 606, 6Th Floor, Indra Circle-1(1), Prakash, 21, Barakhamba New Delhi Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaca0377R Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv Shri Sudarshan Roy, Adv Revenue By: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 31/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr DR

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

Kathleen Confectioners, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-32, Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1187/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri N. S. Saini, Advocate & Shri SonuFor Respondent: Shri Loviesh Shelley, JCIT, DR

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 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 ... 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. Deepak Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 466/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234CSection 36(1)(va)Section 43(1)Section 43A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘C’, KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial

Vaco Binary Semanties LLP, Haryana vs. Circle 4(1), Haryana

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

ITA 327/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Sood, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36

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. 45. 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. The court

Safal Hospitality and Maintanance Service, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 76/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Khandhar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(24)Section 28Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 438

Computing the income of the previous year in which the sum is actually paid by him) (2) On combine reading of aforesaid section 2(24)(x) section 36(1)(va) and section 43B Your Honour would observe that primarily any sum received by the assessee from his employees as contributions

Lakeshore Hospital and Research Centre Limited, Kochi vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle 1(2), Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 71/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Daslakeshore Hospital & Rsearch Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle Centre Ltd. 1(1), C.R. Building, Xvi Maradu, Nh 47 Bye Pass Vs. Is Press Road, Netoor P.O., Kochi 682040 Kochi 682018 [Pan:Aaacl4923A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Rohini V. Thampi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial

JCIT, Special Range - 1, New Delhi vs. Ameriprise India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1806/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Sawhney, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 40Section 40a

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘A’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT, AND SHRI N.K

M/S Chokshi Vachhraj Makanji & Co., Junagadh vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle - 1 (1), Rajkot - Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 65/RJT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Hri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Samir Jani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

case of employee's contribution which were deducted from their income and was held in trust by assessee-employer as per section 2(24)(x), thus, said clause would not absolve assessee-employer from its liability to deposit employee's contribution on or before due date as a condition ... employee's income by way of deduction wherein one is liability to be paid by employer and second is deemed income as per section 2(24)(x) which is held in trust by assessee- employer, thus, said marked difference was to be borne while interpreting obligation of assessee-employer under

M/S. Jaika Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur vs. Deputy Commiissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 267/NAG/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Dec 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Nag/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Jaika Automobiles & Vs. Acit, Circle-2, Nagpur. Finance Pvt. Ltd., Jaika Building, Commercial Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur- 440001. Pan : Aaacj3178K Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.267/Nag/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Jaika Automobiles Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore. Ltd., Jaika Building, Commercial Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur- 440001. Pan : Aaacj4462A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri K. P. Dewani Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Subrahmanyan Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’) Dated 15.03.2022 & 23.12.2021 For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.267/Nag/2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri K. P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Subrahmanyan

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR – VIRTUAL COURT BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

M/S. Jaika Automobiles and Finance Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 193/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri K. P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Subrahmanyan

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR – VIRTUAL COURT BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Telecrats India Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 605/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl.CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

noted that the AO disallowed the amount of Rs.49,67,023/- u/s 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) 4 TELECRATS INDIA PVT LTD. VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR of the Act based on the details provided in the Tax Audit Report in Form 3CD at clause ... decision in case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. 4.41. Thus, all the contentions on the issue of disallowance u/s.36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) vis a vis section 143(1)(a) of the Act stand already decided against the appellant vide the decisions cited above

Telecrats India Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 574/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl.CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Kandarp Tradelinks and Services Private Limited, Vki, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed,

ITA 561/JPR/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2023AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 250(5)Section 36(1)(va)

circumstances of the case, Central Processing Centre has erred in law while processing return u/s 143(1)(a) by making an addition under section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act of Rs. 309227.00 on account of late deposit of Employees contribution of ESI without ... 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 DCIT vs. Kandarp Tradelinks and Services Pvt Ltd 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing

DCIT Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb Jaipur vs. Kandarp Tradelinks and Services Private Limited, V K I Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed,

ITA 560/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 250(5)Section 36(1)(va)

Sm Workforce Private Limited, Bhiwadi vs. ITO, Ward, Bhiwadi

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

ITA 426/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143Section 154Section 2Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

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 ... 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Raipur

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

ITA 3/RPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2 & 3/Rpr/2023 Co Nos. 19 & 20/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K Meena, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

method of accounting followed. In the present case, when the assessee received the contributions from their employees', the same constituted income as per Section 2(24)(x) of the Act. Since it was not paid in time, no deduction is allowable

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Raipur

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

ITA 2/RPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K Meena, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)