← 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)

Makson Health Care P Ltd, Mandideep vs. The DCIT/Accit-1(1), Bhopal

In the result, both appeals filed by the assesse in ITANo

ITA 35/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 36(1)(i)

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 ... Rajasthan High Court).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

Makson Healh Care P Ltd, Mandideep vs. The DCIT/ACIT1(1), Bhopal

In the result, both appeals filed by the assesse in ITANo

ITA 34/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 36(1)(i)

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 ... Rajasthan High Court).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

M/S A R Transport, Satna vs. Income Tax Officer, Satna

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

ITA 16/JAB/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. A.R.Transport, Vs Ito, Delha Mod, Sarla Nagar, Ward-1, Satna Maihar Distt., Satna-485772 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aayfa6634L Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 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 ... Transport vs ITO 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) as income

Coronation Cigar Co., Mumbai vs. Dy.Comm of Income Taxcircle 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1728/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.1728/मुं/2022 (िन.व. 2018-19) Coronation Cigar Co. 63, Mg Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. Pan: Aaefc-3151-A ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax Circle -17(1) 1St Floor, Kautiliya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 051. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri Falee Bilimoria & Furquan Ahemad Revenue By : Shri Prashant Mahajan सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 12/07/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: S/Shri Falee Bilimoria &For Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234BSection 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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 ... former forms part of the 5 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

Rajaram Shankarlal Sonagra, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1953/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

date, as prescribed in the respective statute, which resulted into making the disallowance/addition of Rs.2,89,343/- u/s 36(1) (va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services ... 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

Shri Siddhesh Kumar Gaur, Jodhpur vs. ADIT, CPC, ACIT, Circle-3, Bengaluru / Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 18/JODH/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Mohan, JCIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)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

The ACIT-1(1), Indore vs. M/S. Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 210/IND/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Sept 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit-1(1) M/S. Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Indore Plot No.A-43, Phase-Ii, Midc, Vs. Chakan, Pune, Maharastra (Appellant / Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcb2304E Revenue By Shri Ankit Guttani & Yash Daga, Ars Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2023

Section 36(1)(va)

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. Page 3 of 7 Bridge Stone India P. Ltd. Page 4 of 7 52. When ... Rajasthan High Court).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

Phoenix Poultry, Jabalpur vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1), Jabalpur

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

ITA 76/JAB/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalephoenix Poultry, Vs. Acit, Circle -1(1) 201, Ratan Colony, Jabalpur, Gorakhpur, Madhya Pradesh. Jabalpur- 482001. Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Aajfp5811H Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dhiraj Ghai, Ca Respondentby : Shri, Shiv Kumar. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/S 143(1)And 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, CAFor Respondent: Shri, Shiv Kumar. Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

M/S Tarun Construction Company, Ward No.24, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Suratgarh vs. CPC, Bangalore/ ITO, Ward-1, Sriganganagar

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 109/JODH/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Mohan, JCIT-DR
Section 10ASection 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

report. 3. The employees contribution to PF/ ESI/ other welfare fund received by the employer is income of the employer by virtue of section 2(24)(x) of the Act which provides that income includes: “(24) "income" includes— …. “any sum received by the assessee from his employees as contributions ... After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we have carefully examined the above statutory provisions of the Act including the definition of sections 2(24)(x) and s. 36(1)(va) and 43B(b), which read thus : 2.(24) 'income' includes,— . . . (x) any sum received by the assessee from

M/S Tarun Construction Company, Ward No.24, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Suratgarh vs. CPC, Bangalore/ ITO, Ward-1, Sriganganagar

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 108/JODH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Mohan, JCIT-DR
Section 10ASection 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

report. 3. The employees contribution to PF/ ESI/ other welfare fund received by the employer is income of the employer by virtue of section 2(24)(x) of the Act which provides that income includes: “(24) "income" includes— …. “any sum received by the assessee from his employees as contributions ... After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we have carefully examined the above statutory provisions of the Act including the definition of sections 2(24)(x) and s. 36(1)(va) and 43B(b), which read thus : 2.(24) 'income' includes,— . . . (x) any sum received by the assessee from

Siddhanth Ex - Servicemen Security Services, Vasco vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 90/PAN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri P.R.V. RaghavanFor Respondent: Smt. Ashwini Hosmani
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

paid within due dates of respective statutes. On careful reading of the said decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Section 2(24)(x) deems amount received from the employees as income and the amounts retained by the employer from out of the employee’s income

Shree Poly Films Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax/ Assistent Commissione of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 124/VIZ/2022[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.124/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Shree Poly Films Private Limited Vs. Dcit/Acit D.No.50-53-11/10 Circle-3(1) Revathi Vihar Apartment Visakhapatnam Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aalcs3403K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

case. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the elarned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, being late deposit of Employees contribution towards ESIC/EPF

Amaravathi Power Associates, Visakhapatanam vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatanam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/VIZ/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Sept 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.104/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Amaravathi Power Associates Vs. Dcit/Acit D.No.36-91-30, Ravindra Nagar Circle-3(1) Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aanfa4444M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

case. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the elarned Commissioner ouht to have appreciated that the provisions of section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, being late deposit of Employees contribution towards ESIC/EPF

Ask Wealth Advisors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(2)., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1904/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1904/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ask Wealth Advisors Pvt. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-6(1)(2) Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai- Vs. Birla Aurora, 16 Level, 400020. Office Floor 9, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400030. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafca9124M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shreyam B. Shah Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)], Delhi Dated 11.06.2022 For Ay. 2018-19. 2. This Is Second Round Before This Tribunal. It Is Noted That This Captioned Appeal Of Assessee Was Partly Allowed In The First Round By This Tribunal Vide Order Dated 30.09.2022. However, The Same Has Been Recalled In Ma No. 298/Mum/2023 In The Light Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Decision In The Case Of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cit (448 Itr 518). Therefore, This Appeal Is Adjudicated Afresh. The Main Grievance Of Assessee Is Against The Action Of Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Disallowance Of Employee’S Contribution Made Towards Pf/Esi To The Tune Of Rs.12,18,871/-.

For Appellant: Shri Shreyam B. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. AR)
Section 10ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM

Promise Manpoer Services Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-20(2), Delhi

ITA 302/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra[A.Y. 2018-19]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 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

Desein P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 634/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Surender Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek K. Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 250oSection 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

Employee Contribution to Provident Fund (PF)) on account of alleged delayed payment of Employees’ Contribution to PF/ESI by invoking the provisions of Section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 3. That the order dated 27.01.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the National

Antony Commercial Vehicle Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1704/MUM/2021[2018 -19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 254(1)Section 254(2)Section 36(1)(iv)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

ACIT, Circle 49(1), Delhi vs. Richa & Co., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed subject to our directions contained in para 8 above

ITA 2354/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri K V S R Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)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 3 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai vs. Shri Sandeep Surendran Nair, Bhilai

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by Revenue in the present appeal found to be squarely covered in favour of the assessee and thus the same are rejected

ITA 100/RPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.100/Rpr/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. The Dcit-1(1) Shri Sandeep Surendran Bhilai Nair, Prop. M/S. Vasava Engineering Construction, 113-Friends Arcade, Shastri Nagar, Supela, Bhilai [Pan: Aczpn 2865 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By Shri Makarand M. Joshi & Shri Aniruddha Kavimandan, Cas ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, : Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 22.08.2023 : घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2023

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 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 ... deduction Section 36(1)(va), read with sections 2(24)(x) and 438, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Employee's contributions (PF/ESI) - Whether there is a marked difference between nature and character of assessee-employer's contribution and amounts retained by assessee from out of employee's income

On Door Concepts P Ltd, Bhopal vs. DCIT/ACIT 3(1), Bhopal

In the result, both appeals filed by the assesse in ITANo

ITA 13/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

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