← 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)

Rekha, Meerut vs. ITO Ward 1(2)(3), Meerut

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

ITA 584/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Chandra Mohan Garg & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediarekha Vs. Ito Sai Dham, Victoria Park, Ward – 1(2)(3), Meerut, Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh-250 001 Pan No. Aampr 5335 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Monika Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.08.2023

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36

Assessment Years prior to Assessment Year 2021-22, belated employees’ contribution are to be reckoned as taxable income of the assessee under Section 2(24)(x) of the Act and the deduction under Section 36(i)(va) of the Act would not be Rekha vs. ITO 3 permissible thereon

Rambir Singh, Rohtak vs. ITO, Ward-5, Rohtak

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

ITA 2397/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Chandra Mohan Garg & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediarambir Singh Vs. Ito Dada Chhattarpal Ward – 5 Enterprises, 156-Idc Rohtak Hissar Road, Rohtak, Haryana – 124 001 Pan No. Awhps 6868 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Manoj Kumar, C.A. Revenue By Shri Om Parkash, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.08.2023

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36

Assessment Years prior to Assessment Year 2021-22, belated employees’ contribution are to be reckoned as taxable income of the assessee under Section 2(24)(x) of the Act and the deduction under Section 36(i)(va) of the Act would not be Rambir Singh vs. ITO 3 permissible thereon

Bec Projects Ltd., Bhilai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 6/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 06/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Bec Projects Limited 4/5, Industrial Estate, Bhilai (C.G.)-490 020 Pan : Aaacb9275H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

DCIT-1(1), Bhilai 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 438, what was on the statute book, was only ... 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

Intelligent Communication Systems India Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 12(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 129/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Chandra Mohan Garg & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediaintelligent Vs. Ito Communication System Ward -12(2) India Ltd.,1St Floor, New Delhi Administrative Building, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi - 110 020 Pan No. Aaaci 0691 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By -None- Revenue By Shri R. K. Doi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.08.2023

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36

Assessment Years prior to Assessment Year 2021-22, belated employees’ contribution are to be reckoned as taxable income of the assessee under Section 2(24)(x) of the Act and the deduction under Section 36(i)(va) of the Act would not be permissible thereon in case of belated payments

Narang Connect Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 7 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2083/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm Ita. No.2083/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Narang Connect Pvt. बिधम/ Dcit-7(3)(1) Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B-869, 2Nd Floor, Sarkar Mumbai-400020. Heritage, Kane Road, Bandstand, Bandra (West), Mumbai-400050. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn5921E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Anil Sant सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/08/2023 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, Delhi Dated 01.07.2022 For Ay. 2011-12. 2. It Is Noted That This Captioned Appeal Of Assessee Company Was Allowed In The First Round By This Tribunal Vide Order Dated 28.09.2022. However, The Same Has Been Recalled In Ma No. 231/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.6,07,937/-. 3. Despite Notice None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of This Appeal After Hearing The Ld. Dr. From A Perusal Of The Records, It Is Discerned That The Cpc

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 10ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM

Jagson International Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-13(1), Delhi

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

ITA 902/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Jagson International Ltd., Vs Dcit, H-35, 1St Floor, Circle-13(1), Jangpura Extension, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 014. Pan: Aaacj2147A Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. Jagson International Ltd., H-35, 1St Floor, Circle-13(1), Delhi Jangpura Extension, New Delhi – 110 014. Pan: Aaacj2147A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Saxena, Ms Sumangla Saxena & Shri Shyam Sunder, Advocates Revenue By : Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv SaxenaFor Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT, DR
Section 115JSection 115VSection 143(3)Section 407

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

JCIT Circle-13(1), New Delhi vs. Jagson International Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1303/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Jagson International Ltd., Vs Dcit, H-35, 1St Floor, Circle-13(1), Jangpura Extension, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 014. Pan: Aaacj2147A Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. Jagson International Ltd., H-35, 1St Floor, Circle-13(1), Delhi Jangpura Extension, New Delhi – 110 014. Pan: Aaacj2147A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Saxena, Ms Sumangla Saxena & Shri Shyam Sunder, Advocates Revenue By : Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv SaxenaFor Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT, DR
Section 115JSection 115VSection 143(3)Section 407

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

Hellios Service Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 25(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 345/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Chandra Mohan Garg & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediahellios Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito C-126, Naraina Vihar, Ward – 25(1) Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110 028 Pan No. Aadch 9028 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Umang Jain, Adv. Revenue By Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.08.2023

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36

Assessment Years prior to Assessment Year 2021-22, belated employees’ contribution are to be reckoned as taxable income of the assessee under Section 2(24)(x) of the Act and the deduction under Section 36(i)(va) of the Act would not be permissible thereon in case of belated payments

Kishiv Motors Pvt. Ltd., Ambala vs. DCIT, Circle, Karnal

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

ITA 162/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Chandra Mohan Garg & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediam/S. Kishiv Motors Vs. National Faceless Appeal Private Limited, Centre, 9Th Km Stone, Village Delhi Khudi, Jagadhari Road, Ambha Cantt, Ambala, Haryana – 133 001 Pan No. Aadck 9038 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By -None- Revenue By Shri R. K. Doi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.08.2023

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36

Assessment Years prior to Assessment Year 2021-22, belated employees’ contribution are to be reckoned as taxable income of the assessee under Section 2(24)(x) of the Act and the deduction under Section 36(i)(va) of the Act would not be permissible thereon in case of belated payments

K. N. Engineering Works Private Limited, Faridabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed ex parte for statistical purposes

ITA 142/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Chandra Mohan Garg & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediaita Nos.141 & 142/Del/2023 (Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20) K. N. Engineering Works Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 1 Plot No.2, New Dlf Faridabad Industrial Area, Faridabad Haryana – 121 001 Pan No. Aaeck 6406 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By --None-- Revenue By Shri R. K. Doi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.08.2023

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36

Assessment Years prior to Assessment Year 2021-22, belated employees’ contribution are to be reckoned as taxable income of the assessee under Section 2(24)(x) of the Act and the deduction under Section 36(i)(va) of the Act would not be permissible thereon in case of belated payments

K. N. Engineering Works Private Limited, Faridabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed ex parte for statistical purposes

ITA 141/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Chandra Mohan Garg & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediaita Nos.141 & 142/Del/2023 (Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20) K. N. Engineering Works Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 1 Plot No.2, New Dlf Faridabad Industrial Area, Faridabad Haryana – 121 001 Pan No. Aaeck 6406 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By --None-- Revenue By Shri R. K. Doi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.08.2023

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36

Assessment Years prior to Assessment Year 2021-22, belated employees’ contribution are to be reckoned as taxable income of the assessee under Section 2(24)(x) of the Act and the deduction under Section 36(i)(va) of the Act would not be permissible thereon in case of belated payments

Abhay Chordia, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jaipur

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 291/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur03 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Deeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69C

from employees and is not deposited in respective accounts within due date of the respective acts is deemed income of the assesseeas per section 2(24)(x). Therefore claiming this amount as expenditure by the assessee is an incorrect claim as per law. 8. Aggrieved from the order

Rochem Separation Systems India Pvt Ltd, Bandra East Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is allowed, while the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 270/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 2(24)Section 254(1)Section 254(2)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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle)-1, Raipur vs. M/S. Chhattisgarh Steel & Power Limited, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 96/RPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur01 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 96/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Puja Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

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 ... proviso, and observed as follows: “10. “Income” has been defined under Section 2(24) of the Act to include profits and gains. Under Section 2(24)(x), any sum received by the assessee from his employees as contributions to any provident fund/superannuation fund or any fund set up under

Akriti Jewelcraftz (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2262/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

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

DCIT Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bhupati Infrabuild Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 899/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, D.R
Section 132ASection 153C

Rs.1,43,210/- on account of Provident Fund (PF) & Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) respectively under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the act on the ground that the assessee has failed to deposit the employees’ contribution of PF & ESIC within the due date prescribed ... 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

DCIT Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bhupati Infrabuild Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 898/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, D.R
Section 132ASection 153C

Rs.1,43,210/- on account of Provident Fund (PF) & Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) respectively under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the act on the ground that the assessee has failed to deposit the employees’ contribution of PF & ESIC within the due date prescribed ... 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

DCIT Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bhupati Infrabuild Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 897/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, D.R
Section 132ASection 153C

Rs.1,43,210/- on account of Provident Fund (PF) & Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) respectively under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the act on the ground that the assessee has failed to deposit the employees’ contribution of PF & ESIC within the due date prescribed ... 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

Anchor Offshore Services Limited, Mahim West Mumbai vs. CIT(Appeal), NFAC Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 911/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Hakani, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sh. Ashol Kr. Ambastha
Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(iv)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 ... 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

Chemical Process Piping Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2045/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2045/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Chemical Process Piping बिधम/ Acit, Circle-14(1)(2) Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. Ground Floor, Cpe Plot, Road, Mumbai-400020. Bsd Marg, Govandi, Mumbai-400088. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccc6212D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar Revenue By: Shri Samual Pitta (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/07/2023 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, Delhi Dated 26.08.2021 For Ay. 2019-20. 2. It Is Noted That This Captioned Appeal Was Allowed In The First Round By This Tribunal Vide Order Dated 31.05.2022. However, The Same Has Been Recalled In Ma No. 428/Mum/2022 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.8,12,924/-. 3. Despite Notice Of Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of This Appeal After Hearing The Ld. Dr. From A Perusal Of The Records, It Is Discerned That The Cpc Bangalore Passed The Intimation Order U/S 143(1) Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Made Adjustment Of Rs. 8,12,924/- U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act For Late Deposit Of Employee’S

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar SutharFor Respondent: Shri Samual Pitta (Sr. AR)
Section 10ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM