“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)

Unimed Technologies Limited, Halol vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the Departmental appeal is dismissed for AY 2017-18

ITA 1425/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 263

should be treated as valid. After considering the legal position and by referring to the provisions of section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) and the explanatory memorandum to the Finance Bill, 2021, the CIT(Appeals) held that the amendment clarifying the distinction between employer

Assistant Commissioner of Incometax, Race Course, Vadodara vs. Unimed Technologies Limited, Halol Panchmahal

In the result, the Departmental appeal is dismissed for AY 2017-18

ITA 1423/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 263

Sms Smelters Limited, Naharlagun vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 100/GTY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36

income of the assessee. Secondly, a disallowance of Rs. 33,247/- has also been made u/s 36(i)(va), read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. 1.2 Aggrieved with these additions, the assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) where he could not succeed with respect these additions. Briefly

M/S Nihal Projects, Kachchh vs. ITO Ward 2, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

ITA 929/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234ASection 274Section 43BSection 68

I.T.A Nos. 929/Rjt/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 M/s. Nihal Projects (1). That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the disallowance

Flint Power Tools (P) Ltd, Gurugram vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5642/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Flint Power Tools (P) Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Plot Nos. 594, 595, Central Circle-1, Sector 8 Imt Manesar, Faridabad-I, New-1 Gurugram, Haryana Pan: Aadcn0078K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CA & Shri AnkitFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 250(6)Section 37

facts in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 3,436/- representing the employees contribution to provident fund by invoking the provisions contained in section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(v)(a) of the Act. 6. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also erred both

Kamakshi Jute Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 69/KOL/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Rs.37,68,900 made by the Ld. DCIT, CPC invoking the provisions of section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with sections 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va) for the alleged delay in depositing the Employees Contribution to Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance under the relevant

Assam Gas Company Limited, Duliajan vs. DCIT/ ACIT, Circle 1/Dbr, Dibrugarh

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 66/GTY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati16 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 438Section 43B

submit that the said case refers to Clause (va) of subsection (1) of Section 36 i.e. regarding PF etc. to be read with Section 2(24)(x), whereas, in our case Clause (ii) of subsection (1) of Section 36 is applicable i.e. related to Bonus to employees and the related

Ucal Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai-3, Chennai

ITA 1018/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार

Nimbeshwar Gudadram Desai, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1) (Previously Circle-3(3)), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1436/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 36(1)Section 40

filing return under section 139(1) of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer held that as per section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x), employees’ contribution must be paid within the prescribed due date, and late payment cannot be allowed as deduction. Following the decision

DCIT Central Circle, 1(4), Kolkata vs. Jupiter International Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 852/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 852/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,….…Appellant Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Jupiter International Limited,…………….…Respondent Unnayanam, 20A, Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue, Kolkata-700019, West Bengal [Pan:Aaacj6956B] Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate, Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Advocate & Shri K.K. Chhaparia, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.N. Barnwal, Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 07, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: September 30, 2025 O R D E R

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

total income of the assessee at (-)Rs.28,81,49,180/- by making the addition/disallowance of Rs.84,523/- u/s 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act towards employees’ contribution of 2 Jupiter International Limited Provident Fund and ESIC deposited by the assessee-company and Rs.2

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Sheth Realtors, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4008/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Sheth Realtors Income-Tax Officer-7(1) Vasant Oasis, Site Office, [Erstwhile Ito-23(3)(3)] Upper Basement, Mumbai Cts No 345A 1 To 3, Vs. 345A 5 To 6, Makwana Road, Marol, Andheri East., Mumbai – 400059 [Pan: Aavfa3975F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Sheth Realtors Income-Tax, Central Circle 12Th Floor, Hallmark Business 7(1), Vs. Plaza, Sant Dyaneshwar Marg Mumbai Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 [Pan: Aavfa3975F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate & Shri Rahul Hakani, Advocate Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee & Revenue Are Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) 49, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024- Assessment Year 2017-18 25/1075205796(1), Dated 28.03.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income-Tax Officer, Ward-23(3)(3), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 30.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee & Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: I. Ita No. 2712/Mum/2025 [Assessee]

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate and Shri Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)

employees contribution to PF & ESIC is paid before the filing of IT return than there would not be any disallowance under Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of 1.T. Act. 4. Ground No. 4 - Addition of Rs. 10,31,540/- under section 41(1) of the Income

Sheth Realtors, Mumbai vs. ITO-7(1) (Erstwhile ITO-23(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2712/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate and Shri Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)

Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 1504/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B Before Dr. B.R.R. Kumar Kumar, , , , Vice Vice-Before Before Dr. B Dr. B Kumar Kumar Viceshri Siddhartha Nautiyal Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalshri Siddhartha Nautiyal Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalcheckmate Services Pvt. Ltd., Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. 1115 To 1120, 73 East Avenue, Income-Tax, Sarabhai Campus, Near Genda Circle 1(1)(1), Circle, Vadodara-390023 Vadodara [Pan :Aaacc 8465 A] (Appellant Appellant Appellant) Appellant .. (Respondent Respondent Respondent) Respondent Appellant By : Appellant By : Ms. Kinjal V. Shah, Ar Appellant By : Appellant By : Respondent By: Respondent By Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr Respondent By Respondent By Date Of Hearing Date Of Hearing Date Of Hearing Date Of Hearing 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement Date Of Pronouncement Date Of Pronouncement Date Of Pronouncement 29.09.2025

For Appellant: Appellant byFor Respondent: Respondent by Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 26ASection 36(1)(va)

IN IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE IN IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL THE INCOME TAX

Amanta Healthcare Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the order of the Ld

ITA 1088/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 43B

Employee’s contribution of Provident Fund not paid within the due date Rs.10,65,599/-, which was to be considered as income under Section 2(24)(x) of the Act. 2.1 Therefore, the Ld. PCIT had held that the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial

Rishi Parkash, Sonipat vs. Income Tax Officer, Sonipat

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 3230/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 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 ... 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

Atamjeet Singh Sandhu, Mohali vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 644/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

dated 12.10.2022). It was contended that the Apex Court has categorically held that employees’ contribution to PF and ESI, being income under section 2(24)(x), is allowable as deduction only if deposited within the due dates prescribed under the respective welfare legislations. It was further contended that section

Atamjeet Singh Sandhu, Mohali vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 643/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Atamjeet Singh Sandhu, Mohali vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 642/CHANDI/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Animesh Mukherjee, Durgapur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Durgapur

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

ITA 1903/KOL/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Suvo Chakraborty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 22(4)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

both assessment years is disallowance of employee's contribution to provident fund and ESI in terms of Section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) read with section 43B of the 2 ITANo.1902&1903/Kol/2024 Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Therefore, we deem it not necessary to reproduce ... orders of the authorities below. The AO disallowed the employees contribution to PF & ESI u/s.36(1)(va) read with section 43B read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act on the basis of tax audit report issued by the auditor in form 3CD where the auditor has provided

Animesh Mukherjee, Durgapur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Durgapur

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

ITA 1902/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Suvo Chakraborty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 22(4)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B