“Section 2(24)(x)”

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

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

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

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

M/S Varsma Engineers Group, 656, Vijay Nagar, Damoh Road, Jabalpur vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1), Jabalpur

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Varsma Engineers Vs Asst. Director Of Group, 656, Vijay Nagar, Income Tax, Cpc, Damoh Road, Jabalpur (M.P.) Bengaluru. Acit, Circle-1(1), Jabalpur. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaefv7885Q Assessee By Shri H.S.Modh, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11/09/2023 O R D E R Per Om Prakash Kant, A.M.: The Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.10.2022 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“In Short The Ld.Cit(A)”] For Assessment Year 2020-21, Raising Following Grounds:-

employee’s contribution is concerned , same is considered as income in the hands of the assessee as per section 2(24)(x) of the Act and on payment or deposit of same before due date under relevant Act, 4 | P a g e make the assessee eligible for deduction

Shri Kamlesh Sen, Bhopal vs. The CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Kamlesh Sen Nfac 55, Saluja Complex Delhi Vs. M.P. Nagar-1 Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Bejps 5672C Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 05.09.2023

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

Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu, Baloda Bazar, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bhatapara, Bhatapara

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.109/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu Main Road, Raseda, Baloda Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Bayps7721N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Khapradih, Bhatapara ……""यथ" / Respondent

employees beyond the prescribed due date as per the respective Acts clearly attracted provisions of section 36(1) (va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which the AO, CPC was duty bound not to ignore but to consider and make addition/adjustment ... sake of convenience and ready reference, section 36(1) (va) and section 2 (24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is reproduced as under, "Other Deductions. 36(1)………………….. (va) any sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of sub-clause (x

Anand Infracon, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed regarding our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.100/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Anand Infracon 502, Dhebar Arcade, Near Kundan Palace, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aatfm4011A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH

Vishwaranjan Prasad Singh, Bhopal vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanivishwaranjan Prasad Singh Dcit-Cpc Prop World Wide Security Org, Bangalore Vs. H 203, Baghmugalia Extension Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Acpps 7520Q Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpandey, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.08.2023

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

Smt. Trushaba C. Manek L/H. of Late. Shri Chandrasinh P. Manek (Properitor of Dwarkesh Enterprise), Okha, Dist. Jamnagar vs. The Pr. CIT, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Mrs. Madhumita Roy(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs. Trushaba C. Manek, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of L/H. Of Late Shri Chandrasinh P. Income-Tax, Manek (Prop. Of Dwarkesh Jamnagar Enterprise), Bazar Lane, Raghunath Road, Okha, Gujarat Pan : Aijpm 0949 F अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.08.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2023 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Jamnagar [Hereinafter Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 30.03.2021, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “1. Hon'Ble Pr. Cit Had Issued Notice U/S. 263 In The Name Of Deceased Person, Therefore Notice Issued U/S. 263 Is Not Valid In The Eyes Of Law & Hence Required To Be Quashed. 2. Hon'Ble Pr. Cit, Jamnagar Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Invoking His Revisionary Powers U/S. 263 Without Having Valid Jurisdiction For Addition Of Income U/S. 2(24)(X) R.W.S. 36(1)(Va) Of The Act For Epf For Rs. 8,35,800/- Whereas Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny On The Following Grounds:

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE MRS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MRS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL

Shalu Dyeing Ptg Mills Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Surat

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.118/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shalu Dyeing Ptg Mills Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, 262 G.I.D.C Industrial Estate, Pandesara, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat – 394221. Surat. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcs8213P Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 15/06/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर