“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)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Kanpur. vs. M/S. Sushrut Institute of Plastic Surgery Private Limited, Lucknow

The appeal of the Department stands dismissed whereas the Cross Objection of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 30/LKW/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. M/S Sushrut Institute Of Plastic Central Circle 2 Surgery Private Limited Kanpur 29, Shahmeena Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaics2582G (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.15/Lkw/2023 [Arising Out Of Ita No.30/Lkw/2023] Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Sushrut Institute Of Plastic V. The Acit Surgery Private Limited Central Circle 2 29, Shahmeena Road Kanpur Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaics2582G (Cross - Objector) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 115BSection 133ASection 142ASection 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 271ASection 36(1)(va)Section 69Section 69A

employees in respect of Provident Fund and ESI within the due date. The AO, treated the same as income of the assessee under section 2(24)(x) of the Act, on which deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Act was disallowed and added to the total income ... confirmed the other two additions, viz., Rs.6,92,900/- made under section 69 of the Act and Rs.1,12,102/- made under section 2(24)(x) of the Act. 2.6 Now, the Revenue has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition

Tinna Rubber and Infrastructure Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-25(1), Delhi

ITA 817/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 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 ... 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

Tinna Rubber and Infrastructure Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-25(1), Delhi

ITA 816/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

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

Rajendra Kumar Tripathi, Delhi vs. AO, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s)

ITA 3225/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 3225/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2021-22 Rajendra Kumar Tripathi, Vs Cit(A)/Nfac 341, Heritage Tower, Plot No. 1, Income Tax Officer, Sector-3, Dwarka, Ward-56(3), New Delhi-110078 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abppt7714C Assessee By: Sh. Rajendra Kumar Tripathi Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.07.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2021-22 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074785307(1) Dated 20.03.2025, In Proceedings U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Kumar TripathiFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 246ASection 260ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

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

Nagreeka Foils Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 3, Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for AYs

ITA 1930/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'बी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री प्रदीप

Nagreeka Foils Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 6(3), Kolkata

ITA 1789/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 40a

I.T.A. Nos.: 1788, 1930 & 1789/KOL/2024 AYs: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 Nagreeka Foils Ltd. orders u/s 143(3)/263

Nagreeka Foils Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee for AYs

ITA 1788/KOL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36

Sh. Abhay Kumar Godha, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 546/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 546/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Abhay Kumar Godha 750, Achariyon Ka Rasta, Kishan Pole Bazar Jaipur - 303 003 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ACIT Circle-1 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायी लेखा सं. / जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAPPG 4721K अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR स

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 115BSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 69A

employees to the 6 SHRI ABHAY KUMAR GODHA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR relevant funds is the employer's income under Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act and the deduction for the same can be allowed only if such amount is deposited in the employee's account

Elsamex Maintenance Services Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle Gandhinagar, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1215/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri T R Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Bhupal Rapelli, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 244ASection 36(1)(va)Section 41

unpaid employees’ contribution to PF and ESI was income of the assessee in accordance with provision of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. section 2(24)(x) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had examined the intention of the legislature and clarified the provision as it existed ... audit report which was considered as income of the assessee in accordance with provisions of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. section 2(24)(x) of the Act. We, therefore, upheld the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and the ground taken by the assessee is dismissed

ITO Ward-4(1), Gurgaon vs. Sandeep Sandha, Gurgaon

ITA 1195/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Samyak Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 246ASection 260ASection 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH 'G', NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. S

Servokon Systems Ltd, Delhi vs. Income Taxofficer, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid conditions

ITA 4509/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 Servokon Systems Ltd., Vs Ito, C-13, Radhu Palace Road, Ward-23(1), Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. Delhi – 110 002. Pan: Aabcs2570D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Wahaj Ahmad Khan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Wahaj Ahmad Khan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr. DR

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

consequence of above-stated discussion, the prima facie disallowance of impugned contribution towards ESI and EPF under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act of 1961 made by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(1)(a) by order dated 16.12.2021 is hereby set-aside

Jt. Cti (OSD), Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

ITA 791/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 271

confirming disallowance of delayed payment of Rs.2,10,729/- to ESIC and Rs.2,51,103/- to Provident Fund as per provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w.s.36(l)(va) of the I.T. Act. 3) In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned ... learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming disallowance of delayed payment of Rs.9,34,222/- to ESIC as per provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w.s.36(l)(va) of the I.T. Act. Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT (Five Appeals) 3 3) In law and in facts and circumstances

Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

ITA 516/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 271

The DCIT, Cir-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

ITA 2224/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 271

M/S. Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

ITA 2008/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 271

M/S. Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

ITA 2007/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 271

confirming disallowance of delayed payment of Rs.2,10,729/- to ESIC and Rs.2,51,103/- to Provident Fund as per provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w.s.36(l)(va) of the I.T. Act. 3) In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned ... learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming disallowance of delayed payment of Rs.9,34,222/- to ESIC as per provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w.s.36(l)(va) of the I.T. Act. 3) In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned

Income Tax Officer, Asansol vs. Shri Ram Multicom, Raniganj

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

ITA 219/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 154Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

dates as per the relevant Funds Act without going into the validity of the provisions of section 36(1)(va) and section 2(24)(x) of I.T. Act, 1961 simply relying on the earlier decisions of various judicial forum and completely ignoring the landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme ... where the issue has been discussed comprehensively holding the validity of the provisions of section 36(1)(va) and section 2(24)(x) of the I.T. Act, 1961. This decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India made on 12.10.2022 by the bench comprising of Chief Justice of India

Technoblast Mining Corporation, Raigarh vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 307/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.307/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Technoblast Mining Corporation 19, 2Nd Floor, Krishna Complex, Chaityana Nagar, Raigarh (C.G.)- 496 001 Pan: Aaeft5992Q

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

towards the EPF, considering the due dates under the relevant Acts and regulations. Consequently, by virtue of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act, such sums received by the assessee company constituted "income". Those amounts could not have been allowed as deductions under ... adopted the approach indicated in the ruling Alom Extrusions. As noticed previously, Alom Extrusions 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

United Phosphorus Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai

ITA 6950/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, Advocate and Ms. Saisudha Multani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Tharwal, Sr. DR

Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80

erred in deleting the addition of Rs.6,52,414/- made by the A.O. u/s.36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) in respect of employee's contribution to Provident Fund paid after the due date but during the previous year without considering the fact that the due dates prescribed

United Phosphorus Ltd ( Formelry Known As Search Chem Industries Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai

ITA 5344/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Tharwal, Sr. DR

Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80