“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)

ACIT, Circle-8(1), New Delhi vs. Educomp Solutions Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5002/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Sanjay Garg(Through Video Conferencing) Acit Vs. Educomp Solutions Ltd., Circle – 8(1), 1211, Padam Tower-1, 5 New Delhi - 110002 Rajendra Place New Delhi – 110 008 Pan : Aaace 2983 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By --None-- Revenue By Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.10.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)

order. AO was of the view that the delayed payment of employee’s contribution to ESI & EPF is not allowable in view of Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s 36(1)(va) of the Act. He accordingly disallowed the aggregate payment amounting to Rs.5,53,58,960/-. Aggrieved by the order

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Oxigen Services India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 5467/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2007-08

Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36

Rs.53,627/- of PF contribution is not allowable as deduction u/s 36(l)(va) and is assessee’s income as per provisions of section 2(24)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by ignoring the Explanation given to Section 36(1 )(va) of the Income ... issue in dispute are that the Assessing Officer made the addition of ₹ 53,627/-under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act for the reason that the assessee did not deposit the provision toward PF and ESI within the limitation stipulated in respective enactments

ACIT, Circle- 22(2), New Delhi vs. Saveer Biotech Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6952/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 36

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH

Peartree Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7225/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 2(24)(x)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35DSection 36(1)(v)Section 40Section 40A(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R

Indian Geotechnical Services, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 61(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 622/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Brij Kishor Anand, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr.D.R

relied upon the CBDT Circular No.22/2015 as well as Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act and held that the contribution to PF and ESI is upto the due date provided in the respective statement is allowable deduction and not upto ... submitted that the Explanation 2 inserted by Finance Act, 2021 clarifies that the definition of income as provided in Section 2(24)(x) remain unchanged and provision of Section 43B does not apply and deemed to never have been applied for the purpose of determining the due date of payment

DCIT, Circle- 22(1), New Delhi vs. Samtel Color Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2751/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. D. R

Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 33Section 36(1)

Rs.15,09,656/- ESI) made by the AO on account of late deposit of ESI & PF in contravention of section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1) (va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the said addition despite the fact that there is CBDT

ACIT, Circle- 4(2), New Delhi vs. Bhadra International India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 4459/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. D. R

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Bharat Hotels Limited [2019] 103 taxmann.com 295 (Delhi) has held that “Question No.2 7. The issue here concerns the interplay of Section 2(24)(x) of the Act read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act alongside provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (especially ... treat belated payment of Employee's Provident Fund (EPD) and Employee's State Insurance Scheme (ESI) as deemed income of the employer under Section 2(24)(x) of the Act.” Therefore, the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the later decision of Honourable Delhi high court

ACIT, Circle- 4(2), New Delhi vs. Bhadra International India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 4458/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. D. R

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Ranvik Exports Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1677/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2018-19 Ranvik Exports Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 403, 2Nd Floor, Near Metro Station, Cpc, Pillar No.119, Mg Road, Bangalore. Ghitorni, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr3800L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.08.2021 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex Parte Order Dated 11Th September, 2020 Of The Cit(A), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. It Is Seen That The Notice Issued Through Rpad Has Come Back On The Ground That The House Of The Assessee Is Locked On Visit By The Postal Authorities On Several Days. Since The Assessee Has Not Intimated Change Of Address, If Any, Therefore, This Appeal Is Being Disposed Of On The Basis Of Material Available On Record & After Hearing The Ld. Dr. 3. Although A Number Of Grounds Of Appeal Have Been Raised By The Assessee, These All Relate To The Ex Parte Order Of The Cit(A) In Confirming The Various Disallowances Made By The Cpc.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 37Section 43B

making disallowance of Rs1802953/- ignoring the fact that employees contribution to ESI, PF is an allowable deduction under the provisions of Section 2(24)(x) read with section 43B & section 36(1 )(va) of the IT Act, even if paid beyond the due date under the respective acts but before

Insta Exhibitions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6941/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Insta Exhibitions Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, C/O. Chachan & Lath, 1308-1309, Special Range-4, Best Sky Tower, F-5, Netaji New Delhi Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi, New Delhi Pan: Aabci1085P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR

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

well as the ld CIT(A) disallowed the same holding that such contribution becomes the income of the assessee under the provision of section 2(24)(x) of the Act and thereafter if the same is deposit within the due date prescribed under the respective laws then same is allowable ... treat belated payment of Employee’s Provident Fund (EPD) and Employee’s State Insurance Scheme (ESI) as deemed income of the employer under Section 2(24)(x) of the Act. It is settled law that when two judgments are available giving different views then the judgment which is in favour

Yogi Ji Technoequip Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1609/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2018-19 Yogi Ji Technoequip Pvt.Ltd., Vs Dcit, C/O-Rra Taxindia, D-28, Cpc, Bengaluru. South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi-110034. Pan-Aaacy3222D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh.Somil Aggarwal, Ca Respondent By Sh.Gaurav Pundir, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2021

Section 143(1)Section 2Section 234A

treat belated payment of Employee's Provident Fund (EPD) and Employee's State Insurance Scheme (ESI) as deemed income of the employer under Section 2(24)(x) of the Act.” 9. I find that the Division Benches of this Tribunal in ITA No.4959/Del/2016 in the case of DCIT ... treat belated payment of Employee's Provident Fund (EPD) and Employee's State Insurance Scheme (ESI) as deemed income of the employer under Section 2(24)(x) of the Act. It is settled law that when two judgments are available giving different views then the judgment which is in favour

Pawan Kumar Janghu, Gurgaon vs. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1600/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2018-19 Pawan Kumar Janghu, Vs Dcit, C/O-Ca M R Sahu & Associates, Cpc, Bengaluru. H.No.651, Ff, Sec-10A, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001. Pan-Aevpj8333C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. M.R.Sahu, Ca Respondent By Sh.Gaurav Pundir, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2021

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 244ASection 36(1)(va)

Assessment Year : 2018-19 Employee's Provident Fund (EPD) and Employee's State Insurance Scheme (ESI) as deemed income of the employer under Section 2(24)(x) of the Act.” 9. I find that the Division Benches of this Tribunal in ITA No.4959/Del/2016 in the case of DCIT ... treat belated payment of Employee's Provident Fund (EPD) and Employee's State Insurance Scheme (ESI) as deemed income of the employer under Section 2(24)(x) of the Act. It is settled law that when two judgments are available giving different views then the judgment which is in favour

Azamgarh Steel & Power Private Limited, New Delhi vs. CPC, Banglore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1626/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Azamgarh Steel & Power Vs. Cpc Pvt. Ltd., Banglore 505, Dda Building, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi, Delhi-110092 Pan No. Aaica 4658 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain Advocate Shri Ashish Goel, C.A. Revenue By Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, New Delhi Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under:

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

treat belated payment of Employee’s Provident Fund (EPD) and Employee’s State Insurance Scheme (ESI) as deemed income of the employer under Section 2(24)(x) of the Act. It is settled law that when two judgments are available giving different views then the judgment which is in favour

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dee Development Engineers Ltd., Faridabad

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4959/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 143(2)Section 14A

ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi vs. Satender Kumar Jain, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7358/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 37(1)

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

Manoj Kumar, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-62(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 978/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 143(3)

contribution to ESI/PF is by the employee. This contribution has been treated as income in the hands of the employer in terms of section 2(24)(x) of the Act which reads as under: “(24) "income" includes— (x) any sum received by the assessee from his employees as contributions ... Delhi High Court in the case of Bharat Hotel Ltd. (supra) has held as under: “7. The issue here concerns the interplay of Section 2(24)(x) of the Act read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act alongside provisions of the Employees‟ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6525/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

respect of belated payment of employees contribution to ESI which was treated as income u/s 36(l)(va) of the Act read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. 8. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case the CIT (A) has erred in deleting the disallowance