← 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)

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

ITA 97/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2015-16

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 101/SRT/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2019-20

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 100/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2018-19

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

Akar Auto Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 502/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2018-2019

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

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, AM & SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JM

DCIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi vs. Dec Property Management (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 2667/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita Nos. 2666 & 2667/Del/2022 (Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20) Dcit Vs. Dec Property Management Circle – 7(1) (India) Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi 1101, Plot No.D-9, Gopal Heights, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi - 110034 Pan No. Aabcd 7231 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Jaspal Sathi, Adv. Revenue By Shri Javed Akhtar, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 08.09.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20. 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Both The Parties Submitted That Though The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are For Two Different Assessment Years But The Facts & Issues Involved In Both The

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV

DCIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi vs. Dec Property Management (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 2666/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita Nos. 2666 & 2667/Del/2022 (Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20) Dcit Vs. Dec Property Management Circle – 7(1) (India) Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi 1101, Plot No.D-9, Gopal Heights, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi - 110034 Pan No. Aabcd 7231 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Jaspal Sathi, Adv. Revenue By Shri Javed Akhtar, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 08.09.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20. 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Both The Parties Submitted That Though The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are For Two Different Assessment Years But The Facts & Issues Involved In Both The

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV

Vinod Kumar Sharma, Delhi vs. AO Ward 71(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 233/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 115BSection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(va)

admittedly a sum received by the taxpayer/employer from the employee. Therefore, for considering such question, application of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) alone is the proper course and any other interpretation would only defeat the object and scope of both the provisions ... 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

C & C Constructions Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1544/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita Nos. 1543 & 1544/Del/2022 (Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15) C & C Constructions Ltd. Vs. Dcit 74, Hemkunt Colony, Central Circle – 19 New Delhi – 110 048 New Delhi Pan No. Aaacc 4543 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sibtain Raza, A.R. Revenue By Shri Javed Akhtar, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.04.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Both The Parties Submitted That Though The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are For Two Different Assessment Years But The Facts & Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical Except For The Assessment Year & The

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV

C & C Constructions Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1543/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita Nos. 1543 & 1544/Del/2022 (Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15) C & C Constructions Ltd. Vs. Dcit 74, Hemkunt Colony, Central Circle – 19 New Delhi – 110 048 New Delhi Pan No. Aaacc 4543 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sibtain Raza, A.R. Revenue By Shri Javed Akhtar, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.04.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Both The Parties Submitted That Though The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are For Two Different Assessment Years But The Facts & Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical Except For The Assessment Year & The

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV

Shivendra Singh, Raipur vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur

ITA 13/RPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(va)

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

Shivendra Singh, Raipur vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur

ITA 12/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(va)

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

Pramod Kumar Chand, Bhilai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

ITA 105/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(va)

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

Rajhara Engineering Works Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Dalli Rajhara vs. Assessing Officer, Ward - (2), Bhilai

ITA 110/RPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(va)

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

M/S. R N Construction, Bhilai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Bangalore

ITA 105/RPR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(va)

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

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

ITA 88/RPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(va)

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

Manju Singh, Kota vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Kota

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

ITA 56/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhlesh Kataria, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Manisha Choudhary, Addl.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

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

Arun Kumar Verma, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer 1(2), Bhilai, Durg

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 80/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.79 & 80/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-2020 Arun Kumar Verma Plot No.152, Telgu Para, Maroda Tank, Maroda, Bhilai (C.G.) Pan : Abkpv0530H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Puja Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

dates under the relevant acts and regulations. Consequently, the AO 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". Those amounts could not have been allowed as deductions under Section

Arun Kumar Verma, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer 1(2), Bhilai, Durg

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 79/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.79 & 80/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-2020 Arun Kumar Verma Plot No.152, Telgu Para, Maroda Tank, Maroda, Bhilai (C.G.) Pan : Abkpv0530H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Puja Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

dates under the relevant acts and regulations. Consequently, the AO 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". Those amounts could not have been allowed as deductions under Section

Santosh Kumar Nishad, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 108/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 107 & 108/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-2020 Santosh Kumar Nishad Mandhar, Mohadi, Tehsil : Dharsiwa, Raipur-493 111 (C.G.) Pan : Agfpn5475R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

clearly attracted provisions of section 36(1) (va) 5 Santosh Kumar Nishad Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur ITA Nos. 107 & 108/RPR/2023 read with section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which the AO, CPC was duty bound not to ignore but to make addition/adjustment ... making the addition/adjustment of employees' contribution of PF and ESI amounting to Rs. 4,36,101/- u/s 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act in the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act and subsequently retaining the same in the order

Santosh Kumar Nishad, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 107/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 107 & 108/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-2020 Santosh Kumar Nishad Mandhar, Mohadi, Tehsil : Dharsiwa, Raipur-493 111 (C.G.) Pan : Agfpn5475R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

clearly attracted provisions of section 36(1) (va) 5 Santosh Kumar Nishad Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur ITA Nos. 107 & 108/RPR/2023 read with section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which the AO, CPC was duty bound not to ignore but to make addition/adjustment ... making the addition/adjustment of employees' contribution of PF and ESI amounting to Rs. 4,36,101/- u/s 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act in the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act and subsequently retaining the same in the order