“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)

Gayathri Papanna, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralised Processing Centre, Bangalore

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

ITA 280/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessmentyear:2019-20 Gayathri Papanna Deputy Commissioner Of #67 4Th Cross, 2Nd Main Income Tax Hosahalli Centralised Processing Centre Vs. Vijayanagar Bangalore Bengaluru 560040 Pan No : Brypp3124J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. R.E. Balasubramaniam, Ca Respondent By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.05.2022 O R D E R Perb.R. Baskaran: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 03/12/2021Passed By Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Solitary Issue Urged In This Appeal Relates To Disallowance Of Rs.11,20,008/- , Being Employees Contribution To Provident Fund& Esi, Made Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short] In Ay 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20 On 13.10.2019. The Return Of Income Wasprocessed U/S 143(1) Of The Ac, Wherein The Disallowance Of Rs.11,20,008/- Was Made U/S Gayathri Papanna Page 2 36(1)(Va) Of The Act On The Ground That The Employees Contribution To Pf & Esi Has Been Paid By The Assessee Beyond The Due Date Prescribed In The Respective Acts.

For Appellant: Shri. R.E. Balasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate

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

N. Narasimha Murthy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 237/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Smt Sumangala Ranga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate

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

N. Narasimha Murthy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 236/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Smt Sumangala Ranga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate

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

M/S. Sun Manufacturing Solutions, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 712/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Sun Manufacturing Solutions The Income Tax Officer Sy. No. 151, 11Th Main Road Ward – 6(2)(1) Peenya Indl. Area, 3Rd Phase Bengaluru Vs. Laggere Village Bengaluru 560058 Pan No : Abyfs6836P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Miss Sunaiana Bhatia, Ca Respondent By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.05.2022 O R D E R Perb.R. Baskaran: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 30/09/2021Passed By Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Solitary Issue Urged In This Appeal Relates To Disallowance Of Rs.3,75,531/-, Being Employees Contribution To Provident Fund& Esi, Made Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short] In Ay 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2018-19 On 28.03.2019. The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act, Wherein The Disallowance Of Rs.7,65,472/- Was Made U/S M/S. Sun Manufacturing Solutions Page 2 36(1)(Va) Of The Act On The Ground That The Employees Contribution To Pf & Esi Has Been Paid By The Assessee Beyond The Due Date Prescribed In The Respective Acts. The Assessee Filed A Rectification Petition Objecting To The Disallowance Made & In The Rectification Order, The Addition Was Sustained To The Extent Of Rs.3,75,531/-.

For Appellant: Miss Sunaiana Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate

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

Shiv Sagar Restaurant Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 2442/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai25 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshiv Sagar Restaurant Vs. A.O.,Cpc Pvt Ltd,Dharam Prem Bangalore, Apartments,Nehru Road, Karnataka-560500 Vile Parle(East) Mumbai-400057 Pan/Gir No. : Aabcs1285M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Jigar Sangani.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Samruddhi Hande.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter ‘The Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 143(1) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Jigar Sangani.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Samruddhi Hande.DR

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

Axis Carriers & Logisticas Ltd, Mumbai vs. CPC, Income Tax Department, Bengaluru

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

ITA 159/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh K. MilwaniFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

M/S. Oricon Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT, RG-8(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2440/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.2113 & 2440/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Oricon Enterprises Vs. Dcit, Range-8(2)(1) Limited, (Amalgamated 6Th Floor, Aayakar Company)(Erstwhile Oriental Bhavan, Containers Ltd, Amalgamating Mumbai - 400020 Company, Now Amalgamated With Oricon Enterprises Limited) 1076, Dr. E Moses Road, Worli, Mumbai -400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaco0480F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri NahtaFor Respondent: Vranda U. Matkari

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

ITA Nos.2113 & 2440/Mum/2021 AYs. 2017-18 & 2018-19 1 M/s Oricon Enterprises Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Range-8(2)(1) IN

M/S. Oricon Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. -8(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2113/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri NahtaFor Respondent: Vranda U. Matkari

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

ITA Nos.2113 & 2440/Mum/2021 AYs. 2017-18 & 2018-19 1 M/s Oricon Enterprises Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Range-8(2)(1) IN

Assort Staffing Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Asst Dir of Income Tax CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 95/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Poojan MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

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

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 as his income, deserves

Ken Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 24/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept

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

M/S. Valdel Engineers and Constructors Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 126/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations:- (i) Referring to the provisions of section 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va) of the Act, section 36(1)(va) specifically covers the employees’ contribution to ESI, the same cannot be considered under any other provisions including ... 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

M/S. Sattva Media and Consulting Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 124/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Years : 2019-20 M/S. Sattva Media & Consulting Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 294/295, 2Nd Floor, Commissioner Of Amarjyothi Layout, Income Tax, Opp. Egl Tech Park, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Domlur, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 071. Pan: Aancs2959Q Appellant Respondent : Shri Sudheendhra B R, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18-05-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.12.2021 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein Below Are Independent & Without Prejudice To The Other Grounds Preferred By The Appellant. 1. General Ground 1.1 The Order Passed By The Cit(A), Nfac Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed.

For Respondent: Shri Sudheendhra B R

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

Scheme, that would Page 5 of 7 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 as his income, deserves to be rejected

Mrm Solutions, Shivamogga vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 707/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept

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

Sri Gajanana Enterprises, Shivamogga vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 706/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept

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

R.P..Synthetics, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2264/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Sanjay Gargr.P. Synthetics The Dcit Plot No.. R.67, Midc Cpc, Bangalore, Thane Belapur Road, Vs. Karnataka-560500 Navi Mumbai-400 701 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaefr7566C Assessee By : Shri Vinay Devi, Ar Revenue By : Shri. Anil Gupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2022

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Devi, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Anil Gupta, DR

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

account of delayed deposit of employees contribution to PF and ESI u/s 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

Dicitex Home Furnishing Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 1 (3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1715/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2017-18

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) & Could Be Allowed As Deduction.

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 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