“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)

Parminder Kumar, Sonepat vs. ITO, Ward-3, Sonepat

In the result, the Appeal in ITA No

ITA 2982/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Department by: Sh. Rajesh Dhanesta. SrFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Dhanesta. Sr

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 43

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 ... Parliament intended to retain the separate character of these two amounts, is evident from the use of different language. Parminder Kumar Vs. ITO 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

Parminder Kumar, Sonepat vs. ITO, Ward-3, Sonepat

In the result, the Appeal in ITA No

ITA 2981/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Department by: Sh. Rajesh Dhanesta. SrFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Dhanesta. Sr

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 43

DCIT, Circle 7(1), New Delhi vs. Eagle Hunter Solution Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 2150/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vagish Kumar (On behalf of assessee)For Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR

Section 2(24)(assessee)Section 2(24)(x)Section 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 ... limit and the same was paid delayed payment then it is has to be held that the omission is violation of provision of section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act and the same is not allowable to the assessee. Therefore first appellate order is reversed

Rushi Pravinchandra Raskapoor, Surat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 135/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.135/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Rushi Pravinchandra Principal Commissioner Of Raskapoor, Road No.11 Income-Tax-1, Surat, Aaykar Vs. Udhna Industries Estate, Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- Surat-394210 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abmpr 0305 E (""थ" /Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nitin Gheewala, A.R राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-D.R सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/06/2023 आदेश / Order Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Surat (In Short “Ld. Pcit”] Dated 16.01.2023, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. At The Outset, Learned Counsel For The Assessee, Begins By Pointing Out That Ld. Pcit Has Invoked His Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act On The Reason That As Per The Wage Register Of Assessee, For The Period Under Consideration, That Assessee Has Received An Amount Of Rs.2,46,500/- As Employee’S Contribution To Esic & Further An Amount Of Rs.6,144/- As Employee’S Contribution To Provident Fund In Various Months. The Table Is Given In The Order Of Ld. Pcit On Pages-1 & 2 Of His Order, Wherein Total Esic Amount Is Shown At Rs.2,46,500/- & Total Employee’S Provident Fund Amount Is Shown At Rs.6,144/- Respectively. The Ld. Pcit Noted That Employee’S Contribution Is An Income In The Hands Of The Employers As Per Section 2(24)(X) Of The Act, If It Is Not Deposited By Employers

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Gheewala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263

Rs.6,144/- respectively. The Ld. PCIT noted that Employee’s contribution is an income in the hands of the Employers as per section 2(24)(x) of the Act, if it is not deposited by employers ITA No. 135/SRT/2023 A.Y.18-19 Rushi Pravinchandra Raskapoor within the time allowed under

Laxman Nainani, Kota vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 21/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Manisha Choudhary, Addl.CIT

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 496/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

Section 115PSection 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 244ASection 36(1)(va)

Learned AR submitted that 3 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. the assessee has disallowed a sum of Rs.60,084/- under section 2(24)(x) of the Act, which is in effect the disallowance of employees contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. However, while processing the return, the same

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 495/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

Section 115PSection 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 244ASection 36(1)(va)

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 494/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

Section 115PSection 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 244ASection 36(1)(va)

Dilip Construction Company, Balod vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 78/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur01 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.78/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dilip Construction Company Main Road, New Market, Dalli Rajhara, Balod (C.G.)-491 228 Pan : Aadfd9426A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Chhabda, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

before the due date and the amount of Rs.9,770/- was required to be treated as income of the assessee in accordance with Section 2(24)(x), however, it was admittedly deposited in the ESIC account before expiry of the grace period which was not considered by the Assessing Officer

Pradman Engineering Services P Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi, Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 91/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Naina K. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 254Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

91/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) the Act keeping in view the provisions of Section 143(1)(a)(iv) read with Section 2(24)(x), Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Act. Brief facts of the case common to all appeals are that the Assessee 3. had claimed ... under Section 143(1) of the Act, the deduction claimed by the Assessee was disallowed by placing reliance on the provisions contained in Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The issue travelled to CIT(A) in appeal. However

Odex India Solutions P Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 147/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Naina K. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 254Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Sanjay Suganchand Lodha, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bengluru

ITA 56/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Sanjay Suganchand Asst. Director Of Income Lodha, Tax, Cpc Lodha Estate, Centralized Processing Behind Mittal Industrial Vs. Centre, Estate Building No.5, Income Tax Department, Marol Naka, Bengaluru-560 500 Mumbai – 400 059 Pan: Aaapl7043G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Hiren M. Bhatt, D.R

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

ESIC after due date prescribed under the Act which was disallowed under section 36(1)(va) of the Act read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act but certainly before the due date of filing of the return. 6. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee company challenging the impugned ... 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. 5 Shri Sanjay Suganchand Lodha 52. When Parliament introduced Section 43B, what

Home First Finance Company India Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT (CPC) & DCIT, Circle 10(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2109/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2109/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Home First Finance बिधम/ Acit, Cpc (Respondent Company India Limited No.1) Vs. 511, Acme Plaza 136, Dcit, Circle-10(1)(1), Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai (Respondent Andheri East-400059. No.2) 209, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai- 400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacch3317E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pratik Shah Revenue By: Dr. Samuel Pitta (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 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 27.06.2022 For Ay. 2019-20. 2. Even Though, We Had Allowed The Appeal Vide Order Dated 28.09.2022, The Same Has Been Recalled In Ma No. 209/Mum/2023. The Only Issue Is Regarding The Disallowance Confirmed By Ld. Cit(A) Regarding Employee’S Contribution Towards Pf/Esi To The Tune Of Rs.42,34,050/-. 3. We Have Heard Both The Parties & Perused The Records. The Cpc Banglore Processed The Return Of Income U/S 143(1) Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Made Adjustment Of Rs.42,34,050/- U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act For Late Deposit Of Employee’S Contribution To Epf/Esic Beyond The Due Date As Prescribed In The Specified Act (Pf/Esic Acts). The Assessee Has Referred The Decision Of Hon’Ble Jurisdictional High Court In The Case

For Appellant: Shri Pratik ShahFor Respondent: Dr. Samuel Pitta (Sr. AR)

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

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

Gulermak-Tpl Pune Metro Joint Venture, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralised Processing Centre, Bengaluru, Karanataka

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1979/MUM/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Darshan KoikarFor Respondent: Dr. Samuel Pitta (Sr. AR)

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

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

Mehara Eyetech Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1684/MUM/2022[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T. Varkey (Jm)

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘B’ BENCH, MUMBAI. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Aby T. Varkey (JM

M/S. P.A.Zaveri, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Begaluru

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 2057/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Naina K. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 254Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Shri Mahabir Dyeing and Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1829/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Mahabir Dyeing & Printing V. Dcit – 4(3)(1) Mills Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 649, 6Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan 510/511, Kakad Market, 306 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai - 400002 Pan: Aaacm5098H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 41Section 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

Sona Gold Agrochem Pvt Ltd, Patna vs. Adcir, CPC

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed”

ITA 88/PAT/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Patna31 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

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, the said clause would not absolve assessee-employer from its 5 A.Y. 2019-2020 Sona Gold Agrochem Pvt. Limited liability to deposit employee

Shri Shashikumar S Mishra, Bharuch vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Bharuch

ITA 99/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.97 To101/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2019-20) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Shashikumar S Mishra Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-I, Bharuch Ayakar Bhawan, A/7, Ashirwad Nagar Society, Station Road, Bharuch-392001 Bholav, Bharuch-392001 Vs. Enterprises.Nihal@Yahoo.Com Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Central Circle-2, Vadodara, Aykar Bhawan, Vadodara-39007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aoqpm 4008 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Jhaveri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 41Section 43Section 43B

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 ... Shashikumar S Mishra “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 the Employees’ State

Shri Shashikumar S Mishra, Bharuch vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Bharuch

ITA 98/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Jhaveri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 41Section 43Section 43B