← 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)

Sri Sainath Associates, Lucknow vs. Dy.CIT-6, Lucknow

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

ITA 649/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)

same was added back to the total income of the appellant in the light of provision of Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act relying upon the information given by the auditor in Form 3CD. As per the provisions of section

DCIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata vs. Spml Infra Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 440/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 13Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 80Section 80I

former forms part of the employers’ income, and the latter retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of Section 2(24)(x) and therefore, subjected to conditions spelt out by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee

Capacite Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT/DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 6315/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 115JSection 132Section 153ASection 23(1)Section 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(VA)Section 9

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. RAJ

Capacite Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT/DCIT Central Circle 1(2) Mumbai, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 6309/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 115JSection 132Section 153ASection 23(1)Section 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(VA)Section 9

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. RAJ

Satya Pratap Singh Kunwar, Uttar Pradesh vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Ward 2(3), Faridabad, Haryana

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

ITA 984/DEL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)

justified in law and in making the addition of Rs.3,71,171/- u/s 154 of the Act in view of the provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of late deposit of employee contribution towards ESI and PF which has been duly ... assessee submitted that the issue involved is relating to addition of Rs.3,71,171/- in view of the provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) on account of delayed deposit of employees contribution to PF and ESI made in the intimation u/s 143(1) and subsequently vide

Bharath Yuva Sankshema Sangham, Eluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, Eluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 160/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 160/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year:2018-19) Bharath Yuva Sankshema Sangham V. Income Tax Officer 20B-7-21/1 Income Tax Office C/O. Ayyappa Medicals Eluru, West Godavari Andhra Pradesh Gandhi Nagar, Eluru West Godavari District – 534002 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aidpg1046K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (HYBRID HEARING) श्री रिीश

Ravinder Kumar Jha, Ghaziabad vs. The Accessing Officer, Ward- 2(2)(2), Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4179/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshsh. Ravinder Kumar Jha, Vs. The Assessing Officer, 1039, Near Old Magnum Ward-2(2), Ghaziabad Paper Mill Karkar, Jhandapur, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, Up, 201010, India Pan: Aippj0007P Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/08/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)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

Rajesh Kumar Garg, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-49(1), Delhi

ITA 971/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)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

Rajesh Kumar Garg, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-49(1), Delhi

ITA 970/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)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

Ranbir Singh Sorout, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Faridabad

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 54/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43

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

Ranbir Singh Sorout, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Faridabad

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 52/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43

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

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Gvk Jaipur Expressway Pvt Ltd, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for the years [A

ITA 307/JPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us. Moreover, The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objections In Both The

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

been deducted from the salary and not deposited within the due date as prescribed under the relevant Act / Rule. Clearly the provision of section 2(24)(x)are applicable where this contribution is treated as deemed income of the assessee. Now deduction has to be claimed and provision of section

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Gvk Jaipur Expressway Pvt Ltd, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for the years [A

ITA 306/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us. Moreover, The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objections In Both The

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

been deducted from the salary and not deposited within the due date as prescribed under the relevant Act / Rule. Clearly the provision of section 2(24)(x)are applicable where this contribution is treated as deemed income of the assessee. Now deduction has to be claimed and provision of section

M/S Pramod Telecom Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow vs. DCIT/ACIT-3, Lucknow

In the result, in ITA. No

ITA 243/LKW/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Deepak Yadav, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

pointed out that clause 20(B) of Form 3CD, the tax audit report, specifically required the tax auditor to report sums coming under section 2(24)(x), with their due dates and actual date of payments of such sums, to the concerned authorities under section

M/S Pramod Telecom Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow vs. DCIT/ACIT-3, Lucknow

In the result, in ITA. No

ITA 242/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Deepak Yadav, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

pointed out that clause 20(B) of Form 3CD, the tax audit report, specifically required the tax auditor to report sums coming under section 2(24)(x), with their due dates and actual date of payments of such sums, to the concerned authorities under section

Sunrise Facilitators Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula

ITA 689/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.689/Chandi/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Sunrise Facilitators Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Circle बनाम/ Vs. 2238/5B, Shanti Nagar Aaykar Bhawan, Manimajra, Chandigarh. Sector 2, Panchkula "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaics-0850-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025. आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 18-08-2022 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issued By Cpc U/S 143(1) On 15-09-2020 Disallowing Late Payment Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf / Esi For Rs.161.54 Lacs U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) As Reported By Tax Auditor In Tax Audit Report. The Ld. Cit(A)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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) and therefore, subjected to conditions spelt out by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee

Sudhakar Arora, Delhi vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4584/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

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, said clause would not absolve assessee-employer from its liability to deposit employee's contribution on or before due date as a condition ... employee's income by way of deduction wherein one is liability to be paid by employer and second is deemed income as per section 2(24)(x) which is held in trust by assessee-employer, thus, said marked difference was to be borne while interpreting obligation of assessee-employer under

Bharat Benefication & Power Pvt. Ltd., Raigarh vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal

ITA 336/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 336/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 80G

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, रायपुर "ायपीठ,रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी पाथ" सारथी चौधर", "ाियक सद" एवं "ीअ

Mahendra Patel Builders Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara

ITA 1217/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarit(Ss)A No.61 To 65/Ahd/2025 Asstt.Year : 2015-16 To 2019-20 And

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Adhyaru, AR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, अहमदाबाद न्यायपीठ 'C' अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI SANJAY GARG

Shree Society, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 226/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.226/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Society Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward 1(5) Pan:Aanas1911Q Visakhapatnam (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri I Rama Sastry, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30/03/2024 Of The Learned Pr.Cit Passed U/S 263 R.W.S. 254 Of The Act For The A.Y 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri I Rama Sastry, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

ITA No 226 of 2024 Shree Society Visakhapatnam IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Visakhapatnam DB Bench, Visakhapatnam Before Shri