“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)

Aptive Components India P.Ltd (Formerly Known As M/S Delphi Automotive Systems Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-3(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in respect of ground no

ITA 1129/DEL/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2005-06] M/S Aptiv Components India Deputy Commissioner Of Income Private Limited Tax, (Formerly Known As M/S Delphi Vs Circle-3(1), Automotive Systems Pvt. Ltd.) Room No.-380B, C.R. Building P-24, Green Part Extn., Delhi- I.P. Estate, 110016. Delhi-110002. Pan- Aaacd0226E Assessee Revenue

Section 10ASection 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, F: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Dusters Total Solutions Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 980/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 80J

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

Dusters Total Solutions Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 653/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 80J

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

M/S. Kanak Projects Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1219/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarmam/S Kanak Projects Ltd. Vs Acit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata Salarpuria Jajodia @ Co.7, Chittaranjan Avenue, Kol-72. Pan No. : Aabck1255F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S. Jhajharia, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Pandey, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm : This Appeal By The Assessee Arises Against The Order Dated 09.04.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration Declaring A Total Income Of ₹99906480. The Assessee Subsequently Filed A Revised Return Declaring The Same Income. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Statutory Notices Under Section 142(1) Were Served. In Response, The Assessee Filed Audited Financial Statements, Computation Of Income, Details Of Receipts & Expenses & Explanations As Called For. From The Tax Audit

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

fund amounting to ₹28,356 had been deposited by the assessee beyond the due date prescribed under the Employees’ Provident Fund Act. Invoking section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va), the AO added the delayed deposit to the total income of the assessee. The AO further observed

Niladree Build-Tech Private Limited, Puri vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 303/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mahapatra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 2(24)(x)Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कटक "यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING

Poonam Sabharwal, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-28(5), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1183/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)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 le., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee

Poonam Sabharwal, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-28(5), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1182/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

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

Manmegh Singh Kanwar, Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO, Ward-73(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 3063/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Manmegh Singh Kanwar Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income Tax, 4R, 503, Gurjinder Vihar, Cpc Awho Township Greater Bangalore Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida U.P. Pan No.Avqps3897N Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ms. Priyanka Jindal, Advocate Revenue By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2025

Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

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

Sri Lakshmi Road Transport Company, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1209/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1209/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Sri Lakshmi Road Vs. Dy. Cit Transport Company Circle 6(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aatfs6596A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

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 stature

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, Kanpur vs. Commercial Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 779/LKW/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Nov 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2006-07 Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Commercial Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax-5, Kanpur 84/105, Kailash Motors Building, G.T. Road, Afim Kothi, Kanpur-208003 Pan: Aaccc4267E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit (A)- 2, Kanpur Dated 25.09.2017, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Y. 2006-07 On 23.12.2008. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 5,32,366/- U/S 14A Without Taken Into Consideration That The Expenditure Incurred In Relation To Exempt Income. 02. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 99,56,258/-Without Appreciating That The Provisions Of Sec. 50C Have Been Invoked By The Assessing Officer On The Basis Of Stamp Valuation Of The Property. The Assessee Has Not Claimed Before The Assessing Office To Make The Reference To The Valuation Officer U/S 55A Of It Act, 1961. 3 That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 3,20,90,164/- On Account Of Loss Claimed On Sale Of Shares Without Appreciating That The Transaction As Claimed Were Sham & Was Incorporated Only To Evade The Capital Gain Earned On The Sale Of Properties. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Ignoring The Facts Noted By The Assessing Officer Regarding The Transaction Of Sale Of Shares.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(X)Section 41(1)Section 50CSection 55A

depreciation on car Rs. 33,762/- v. Misc. expenses Rs. 1,75,498/- vi. Addition on account of late deposit of ESI under section 2(24)(X) r.w.s. 36(i)(va) Rs. 7,771/- vii. Addition under section 14A Rs. 5,32,366/- Thus, addition of this amount was added

Birlasoft Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 8, Pune

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

ITA 1116/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Birlasoft Limited Dcit, Circle – 8, Pune 35 & 36, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Vs. Park, Phase-1, Midc, Hinjawadi, Pune – 411057 Pan: Aaack7308N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-11-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, V.P: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.08.2023 Of The Ld. Cit(A) / Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assesse Is A Public Limited Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Computer & Software Services. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.11.2018 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.95,13,15,400/-. The Return Was Processed By The Cpc & An Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Was Passed On 25.01.2021 Determining The Total Income At Rs.1,00,23,03,750/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Assessment Under The E-Assessment Scheme, 2019 On The Following Issues:

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 10A(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 27Section 36(1)(va)Section 51Section 80ISection 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA

Oravel Stays Limited (Formerly Known As Oravel Stays Private Limited), Gurugram vs. DCIT Central Circle 6, New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 577/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 194Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

erred on facts and in law in confirming disallowance of INR 62,04,444 made by the assessing officer under section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding the due date ... Rs.42,58,93,218/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and (ii) PF & ESI of Rs.62,04,444/- under section 2(24)(x) rws 36(1)(va) of the Act. Dissatisfied with the assessment order, the appellant assessee filed appeal Before

Oravel Stays Limited (Formerly Known As Oravel Stays Private Limited), Gurugram vs. DCIT Circle 76(1), New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 452/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 194Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

Anupam Industries Limited, Anand vs. The ACIT, Anand Circle, Anand

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1882/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

paid on or before the due date under section 139(1) of the Act. The AO further added Rs. 48,33,282/- under section 2(24)(x) of the Act for delayed deposit of employees’ PF contribution, relying on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Gujarat State Road ... prescribed statutory time. On the addition of Rs. 48,33,282/- relating to employees’ PF contribution, the CIT(A) examined the provisions of sections 2(24)(x), 36(1)(va) and 43B and held, in light of the Supreme Court judgment in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, that employee

Anupam Industries Limited, Anand vs. The ACIT, Ananad Circle, Anand

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 982/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

Anupam Industries Limited, Anand vs. The ACIT, Anand Circle, Anand

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 981/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Anand Circle, Anand vs. Anupam Industries Limited, Anand

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1015/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

Src Projects Pvt. Ltd., Salem vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Salem

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2358/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2358/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S. Src Projects Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, 4-B, Lakshmipuram, Circle-(1), Gandhi Road, Salem-636 007. Salem. [Pan: Aagcs 3528 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Krishna Murthy AT, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

could be held as the income of the appellant/assessee under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act of 1961 or not or whether it is subject to the provisions contained in Section 43-B of the of the Act of 1961, was highly debatable ... consequence of above-stated discussion, the prima facie disallowance of impugned contribution towards ESI and EPF under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act of 1961 made by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(1)(a) by order dated 16.12.2021 is hereby set- aside

Sol Entertainment Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 11(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4924/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

deposited within the due dates prescribed under the relevant labour law (EPF/ESIC Acts), failing which the amount shall be deemed income under section 2(24)(x) and disallowed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the intention of the legislature was to treat employer's and employee's contributions

Data Ingenious Global Limited, Alwar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Alwar

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

ITA 1276/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 244Section 244A

case in making disallowance of Rs. 77,089 on account of delay in depositing the ESI and PF within the meaning of the section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the IT Act, 1961 which have already been added back by the assessee company while filing its return