← 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)

Indraprastha Logistics Private Limited, Delhi vs. AO, CPC Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 473/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanestha, 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

Indraprastha Logistics Private Limited, Delhi vs. AO, CPC Banglore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 471/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanestha, 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

ACIT, Circle- 3, Nainital vs. Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd., Nainital

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed as above

ITA 1200/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)

insurance aggregating to Rs.76,22,211/- and Rs.8,26,865/- respectively. The AO had taxed the same in accordance with the provisions of Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act. The Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (hereinafter ‘Ld. DR’), placing reliance on the decision ... challenged the disallowance of Rs.9,77,145/- (employee’s contribution to Group Insurance), which has been taxed in accordance with the provisions of Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act. This issue has been decided above in para 7 of this order

ACIT, Nainital vs. M/S. Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd., Nainital

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed as above

ITA 908/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)

insurance aggregating to Rs.76,22,211/- and Rs.8,26,865/- respectively. The AO had taxed the same in accordance with the provisions of Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act. The Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (hereinafter ‘Ld. DR’), placing reliance on the decision ... challenged the disallowance of Rs.9,77,145/- (employee’s contribution to Group Insurance), which has been taxed in accordance with the provisions of Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act. This issue has been decided above in para 7 of this order

Shri Jagdish Kumar Gulia, Bhopal vs. Thre Asstt.Directore of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 245/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 260ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

long periods. That Parliament intended to retain the separate character of these two amounts, is evident from the use of different language. Section 2(24)(x) too, deems amount received from the employees (whether the amount is received from the employee or by way of deduction authorized by the stature ... Income Tax-1, [(2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC)]. The Supreme Court in the context of provisions of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, addressed the aspect whether there was marked difference between the nature and character

M/S Daulataram Engineering Services P.Ltd, Mandideep vs. The ADIT/CPC, Bangalore

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

ITA 244/IND/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 May 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 260ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

long periods. That Parliament intended to retain the separate character of these two amounts, is evident from the use of different language. Section 2(24)(x) too, deems amount received from the employees (whether the amount is received from the employee or by way of deduction authorized by the stature ... Income Tax-1, [(2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC)]. The Supreme Court in the context of provisions of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, addressed the aspect whether there was marked difference between the nature and character

Such Media Publication P Ltd, CIT (A) NFAC Delhi vs. NFAC Delhi, Delhi

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

ITA 66/IND/2022[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 May 2025

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 36(1)(va)

long periods. That Parliament intended to retain the separate character of these two amounts, is evident from the use of different language. Section 2(24)(x) too, deems amount received from the employees (whether the amount is received from the employee or by way of deduction authorized by the stature ... Income Tax-1, [(2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC)]. The Supreme Court in the context of provisions of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, addressed the aspect whether there was marked difference between the nature and character

Amj Land Holdings Ltd., Pune vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2415/PUN/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Amj Land Holdings Limited Asst. Director Of Income Tax, Vs. Thergaon, Pune – 411033 Cpc, Bengaluru Pan: Aabcp0310Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 05-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115JSection 154Section 36(1)(va)

Court in para 35 and 52 took note of the memorandum explaining the provisions in the Finance Bill, 1987 through which section 2(24)(x), section 36(1)(va) and second proviso to section 43B were introduced. It was observed that “these provisions were introduced to ensure timely payments were

Power Mech Infra Private Limited, Vijayawada vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

ITA 201/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 May 2025AY 2018-19
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद 'बी' बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B‘Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजूनाथ

M/S. Checkmate Facility & Electronic Solution Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1614/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Ms.Kinjal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 129Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 26ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

made two additions: - Rs.12,785/- on account of delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to PF/ESIC, invoking section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x); and - Rs.1,14,75,362/- on account of mismatch between gross receipts shown in Form 26AS and that disclosed in the books of account

Up Government Employees Welfare, Lucknow vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi

In the result appeals in ITA No

ITA 743/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.743 & 746/Lkw/2024 & Ita No. 30/Lkw/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 U.P. Government Employees Vs. Assessing Officer, Nfac Welfare, Lucknow Pan:Aaatu0957A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 15.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench.: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 23.10.2024, 28.10.2024 & 2.01.2024 In The Appeals Preferred Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3), The Penalty Order Under Section 271Aac(1) & The Penalty Order Under Section 270A. The Grounds Of Appeal In These Three Appeals Are As Under:-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234ASection 270ASection 271ASection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 68

erred in law and on facts and add the employees contribution to PF amounting of Rs. 16263564/- as per the provisions of section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act 1961. 9. A.O. has erred in imposing interest under section 234A ... that there was delayed payment of Employees contribution to Provident Fund amounting to Rs. 1,62,63,564/- as per the provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va). Accordingly, he made an addition of Rs. 1,62,63,564/- on this account. Before making such additions

Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd, Lucknow vs. Dy.CIT Range-6, Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 142/LKW/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.A. & Sh. ShubhamFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl CIT (DR)
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(v)

since the same had not been deposited by the assessee into any recognized Provident Fund, hence, in the light of the provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va), the entire contribution made by the employees during the relevant year was disallowed and added to the total income ... After recording the submissions of the assessee, he proceeded to decide the issue of disallowance of Rs.48,28,730/- under the provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) despite the fact that, as per the grounds of appeal reproduced in his appeal order, the same

Sumita Singhal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-17(4), New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 577/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

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

Section 194Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

erred on facts and in law in confirming disallowance of INR 62,04,444 made by the assessing officer under section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding the due date ... Rs.42,58,93,218/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and (ii) PF & ESI of Rs.62,04,444/- under section 2(24)(x) rws 36(1)(va) of the Act. Dissatisfied with the assessment order, the appellant assessee filed appeal Before

Emson Gears Ltd., Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal stand dismissed

ITA 709/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 709/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Emson Gears Ltd. Dcit, Circle I, बनाम/ Vs. D-42, Phase V, Focal Point, Ludhiana. Dhandari Kalan, Punjab. 141010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaace-3697-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sarabjit Garg (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22-04-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-04-2025 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 Addl. / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Mumbai [Cit(A)] Dated 27-09-2023 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issued By Cpc U/S 143(1) On 03-06-2020 Disallowing Late Payment Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf / Esi In Terms Of Sec.43B R.W.S. 36(1)(Va) As Well As Sec.2(24)(X). The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Same, Inter-Alia, By Relying Upon The Decision Of Hon’Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Checkmate Services P. Ltd Vs. Cit (2022) 143

For Appellant: Sh. Sarabjit Garg (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (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

Schott Glass India Private Liited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 6118/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant (Am) & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan (Jm) Schott Glass India Private Ltd. Dcit-3(2)(1) 203, 2Nd Floor, Dynasty A Wing Aayakar Bhavan Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri Vs. M.K. Road East, Mumbai-400 059. Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aadcs8583L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta & ShriFor Respondent: Ms. Kanupriya Damor
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234CSection 36(1)(va)

dismissed the same observing that the said amount needs to be disallowed under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act as the said amount which is employees’ contribution towards Provident Fund has not been deposited on due date as prescribed under the relevant ... involves disallowance of the employees' contribution to PF relatable to wages for May, 2021 on the contours of Section 36(1)(va) r.w. Section 2(24)(x) of the Act owing to one day delay in deposit of Employees' Contribution. As amply demonstrated on behalf of the assessee, the assessee

Mantra Exports Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6273/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

DCIT 2 2 1, Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 992/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeyes Bank Limited Vs Additional Commissioner Of Income Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor, Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent Additional Commissioner Of Vs Yes Bank Limited Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thard &Ms.Vidhi SalotFor Respondent: Ms. Ramapriya Raghavan - CIT DR&
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

mandated by the statute and has been unequivocally upheld by the highest court. The legal position is as follows:  Statutory Scheme: Section 2(24)(x) of the Act includes within the definition of an employer's "income" any sum received from employees as their contribution to PF/ESI or other welfare

Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1093/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeyes Bank Limited Vs Additional Commissioner Of Income Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor, Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent Additional Commissioner Of Vs Yes Bank Limited Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thard &Ms.Vidhi SalotFor Respondent: Ms. Ramapriya Raghavan - CIT DR&
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

mandated by the statute and has been unequivocally upheld by the highest court. The legal position is as follows:  Statutory Scheme: Section 2(24)(x) of the Act includes within the definition of an employer's "income" any sum received from employees as their contribution to PF/ESI or other welfare

Anil Kumar Malik, Haryana vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Range Code 53, AO Number-1, Circle 1(1) Gurgaon, Haryana

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6110/DEL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Blea.Yr. : 2020-21 Anil Kumar Malik, Vs. Jurisdictional A-905, Sispal Vihar, Sector-49, Assessing Officer Sohna Road, Gurgaon, Range Code-53, Ao South City, Number-1, Circle 1(1), Haryana-122018 Gurgaon (Pan: Abjpm1566B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 43B

that Ld. CIT(A) made a substantial error, both factually and legally, by mis-interpreting the provisions of Section 36(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) and Section 43B, alongwith various legal precedents relevant to the assessment year 2020-21, thereby upholding the disallowance

Dausa Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Dausa vs. ITO WD 1, Bharatpur

In the result both the appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with a amounting of Rs

ITA 1403/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Anoop Bhatia, C.A., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “A”, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARINDER KUMAR