“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)

Late Mr.Seshadri Naidu Dharmaraj Rep by Legal Heir - Mr.Shankar Ganesh, Chennai vs. CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 660/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singhand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR

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

respect of sum belatedly paid towards employee contribution and therefore, for considering such question, application of section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) alone is proper course. It was further held that though an amendment has been introduced to Section 43B, whereby actual date of payment

M/S Maxima Automation Solutions Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp Circle 4 (1), Chennai

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

ITA 649/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.649/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Maxima Automation Solutions Pvt. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., Represented By Its Managing Income Tax, Director, No. 2/87, Raghaava Nagar, Corporate Circle 4(1), 7Th Street, Moovarasampet, Chennai Madipakkam, Chennai 600 091. [Pan:Aagcm1970L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. James Victor Rajkumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 25.05.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By Eight Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed A 2

For Appellant: Shri P. James Victor RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

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

date of filing of return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act, the same is allowable as deduction as per the provisions of Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act 6.3 Now, the question arises, whether by the Finance Act, 2021, the provisions

Arnold Consulting Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 712/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Akshaya K.S., A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

under the provisions of the PF Act and the PF Scheme, that would have to be treated as income within the meaning of Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act and in which case, the assessee is liable to pay tax on the said amount treating that

Zynga Game Network India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 693/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.M/S. Zynga Game Network Vs Dcit, Circle -7(1)(1) India Pvt. Ltd. Bmtc Building, 80 Feet Road No. 19, Prestige Falcon Tower Koramangala 4Th & 5Th Floor, Brunton Bengaluru 560095 Road, Richmond Town Bengaluru 560025 Pan – Aaacz3937G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ankur Pai, Advocate Revenue By: Shri K.R. Narayan, Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi In Appeal No. Nfac/2019-20/10054666 Dated 16.06.2022 For Ay 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Learned Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Cpc / Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) ["Cit(A)"] Has Erred In Disallowing The Delayed Remittance Of The Employees Contribution To Pf Without Appreciating That The Appellant Had Remitted The Same Before The Due Date For Filing Of Return Of Income Under Section 139(1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayan, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Sri Rajanikanth Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 577/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Rajanikanth Reddy Vs The Income Tax Officer- 4(2)(2) No.21, 14Th Main, Venkateshwara Bengaluru Layout, Madiwala Bengaluru 560068 Pan – Ablpr5981K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate Revenue By: Shri K.R. Narayan, Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi In Appeal No. Cit(A)/Bengaluru-4/10069/2020-21 Dated 25.05.2022 For Ay 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Order Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Appeals] / National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac For Short] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Determination Of Total Income Of Appellant In The Order U/S. 154 Of The Act, At Rs. 1,92,26,970/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs. 1,09,63,817/-, Under The Normal Provisions, On Account Of The Disallowance Of Rs. 82,63,148/- Made U/S.36[1][Va] Of The Act, Based Upon The Details In The Tax Audit

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayan, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 36Section 43BSection 44A

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 ... under the provisions of the PF Act and the PF Scheme, that would have to be treated as income within the meaning of Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act and in which case, the assessee is liable to pay tax on the said amount treating that

Sri Family Biznet Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 590/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT-DR

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

Della Adventure and Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1708/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 Della Adventure & Resorts Pvt. National Faceless Appeal Ltd., Centre (Nfac), Delhi, 401, Della Tower, 795 Parsi Vs. Colony, Jam-E-Jamshed Road, Mumbai-400014. Pan No. Aadcd 2549 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Hitesh P. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. T. Shankar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/09/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Hitesh P. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR

Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

received by assessee from any of his employees covered Della Adventure & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Della Adventure & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 1708 & by section 2(24)(x) of the Act because this explanations are prospect by section 2(24)(x) of the Act because this explanations are prospect by section

Della Adventure and Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1707/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Mr. Hitesh P. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR

Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Span Intermediates Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, Ground No.3 of the assessee is allowed subject to submission of certified documents mentioned above

ITA 1917/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalspan Intermediates Pvt. Ltd. 6Th Floor, Jash Chambers, Mustafa Building, Sir Phiroz Shah Mehta Road, Mumbai-400001. Pan: Aabcs6103Q ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3)(1) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Sanjiv M. Shah Respondent By : Sh. Pramod Nikalje Date Of Hearing : 16/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Nfac’] Dated 26.08.2021 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjiv M. ShahFor Respondent: Sh. Pramod Nikalje

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 244ASection 250Section 28Section 36(1)(iv)Section 438Section 43B

this issue simply cut-paste the order relevant to allowability of contribution with reference to section 36(1)(va) and 43B read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. Consequently, he totally ignored the contents of the assessment order, issue involved, submissions of the assessee and law applicable. Here

Private Eye Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 681/BANG/2022[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B.R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Shankar Prasad K., Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

Mr. G R Chandrashekar Naidu, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 677/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Gala Ranga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.R.Narayanan, Addl.CIT-DR

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

M/S. Mittal Clothing Company, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 673/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-29

For Appellant: Shri Rajgopal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K Sankar Ganesh, JCIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

Kya Apparel LLP, Mumbai vs. Dy. Comm of Income Tax, CPC, Bengluru

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

ITA 1732/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalekya Apparel Llp Vs. Dcit, Cpc H. No. 434/6, Gala 6 To P.O.Box.1,Electronic 11, Bldg-A-7, Harihar City, Corporation, Dapode Bangalore.560100. Road, Mumbai – 421302 Pan/Gir No. : Aamfk3840Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Pooja Harjajani.Ar Respondent By : Mr.R.P. Veena.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 143(1) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Ms.Pooja Harjajani.ARFor Respondent: Mr.R.P. Veena.DR

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BASKARAN BR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL

Muppidathy Sivan Thevar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1639/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

types of contributions, namely -the Employer's share, and -the Employee's share. As a precautionary measure under the Income Tax Act, Section 2(24)(x) makes the employees' share as a deemed income in the hands of the employer; however, the employer gets a deduction from its taxable income

Muppidathy Sivan Thevar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1638/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Returns U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Could Be Subject Matter Of Adjustment U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre (Cpc).

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

M/S. Aquasns Fashions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 586/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel

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

M/S. Jsw Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl /CIT/Dy/ACIT/Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, subject to the observations made/ directions given above, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 241/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Om Prakash Kant

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

account of delayed deposit of employees contribution to PF and ESI under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) despite the assessee contributing/depositing the same before the due date of filing of return of income ... account of Employees ‘Contribution to ESI and PF by invoking the provision of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act was correct or not. It appears that the Tribunal below, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner

Dy CIT Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sheth Creators P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2012/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

return than there would not be any disallowance under filing of IT return than there would not be any disallowance under Section 2(24)(x) Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of I.T. Act. Sheth Creators Private Limited Sheth Creator 5 ITA Nos. 2620/M/2019 & Four ... section received by assessee from any of his employees covered by section received by assessee from any of his employees covered by section 2(24)(x) of the Act because this explanat 2(24)(x) of the Act because this explanations are prospective and ions are prospective and not retrospective

Sheth Creators P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1858/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Sheth Creators Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Cent. Cir-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1857/MUM/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2017-18