← All Phrases

“Section 2(24)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(24)1,946 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 2(24) is CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. (321 ITR 508), cited in 1,629 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 2(24)

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. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd.
306 ITR 392 · 2008 · Supreme Court
577
citing judgments

The "Purpose Test" determines whether an incentive or subsidy is a capital or revenue receipt for income tax purposes. If the incentive's purpose is to enable an assessee to set up a new industry or make investments in capital assets, it is a capital receipt and not taxable.

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).

Judgments citing Section 2(24)

Haryana Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Panchkula vs. DCIT, Exemption, Chandigarh

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 337/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 237/Chd/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Haryana Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Bays No. 29- 30, Sector 4, Panchkula, Haryana The Dcit, बनाम Circle 2, Vs. Exemption, Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaath6995H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.337 To 339/Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Haryana Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Bays No. 29- 30, Sector 4, Panchkula, Haryana The Dcit बनाम Exemption, Vs. Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaath6995H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 63/Chd/2021 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Haryana Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Bays No. 29-30, Sector 4, Panchkula, Haryana The Dcit बनाम Exemptions, Vs. Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaath6995H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate, Sh. Ashok Goyal, Ca & Sh. Sifatfreet Singh, Ca राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Manav Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 10.12.2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: The Captioned Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals) For Different Assessment Years, As Per The Details Given Below: S.No.

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 263

amounts collected by way of cess under the Cess Act, 1996 cannot be treated as "income” of the appellant within the meaning of Section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The true legal character of the collection is that of a statutorily mandated contribution, forming part ... include provision of financial assistance to beneficiaries, loans and advances, group insurance, educational and medical assistance, and other notified welfare measures. 4. 7. Section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides an inclusive definition of “income.” While the scope is wide, it is settled law that not every

Mr. Nikhil Sawhney, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1249/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. Dcit, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaups0222Q

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

necessary implication. Before proceeding further, it will be necessary to focus on the definition of the expression 'income' in the statute. Section 2(24) defines 'income' which is an inclusive definition, and includes losses, i.e., negative profit. The position has been elaborately dealt with by this court ... having been rendered in different contexts and fact-settings, is that loss is only negative income and that the definition of "income" under section 2(24) of the Act includes "loss". In other words, it bears the same character and quality as does the positive income. Accordingly, if a particular

Nimbeshwar Gudadram Desai, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1) (Previously Circle-3(3)), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1436/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 36(1)Section 40

filing return under section 139(1) of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer held that as per section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x), employees’ contribution must be paid within the prescribed due date, and late payment cannot be allowed as deduction. Following the decision

Tourism Corporation of Gujarat Limited, Gandhinagar vs. PCIT Ahmedabad - 3, Ahmedabad

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1275/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 43(1)

Finance Act, I.T.A No. 1275/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2020-21 8 Tourism Corporation of Gujarat Ltd. vs. PCIT 2015, the definition of “income” in section 2(24) was amended, and Explanation 10 to section 43(1) along with ICDS-VII mandated that Government grants relatable to depreciable assets must either be reduced

DCIT Central Circle, 1(4), Kolkata vs. Jupiter International Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 852/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 852/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,….…Appellant Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Jupiter International Limited,…………….…Respondent Unnayanam, 20A, Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue, Kolkata-700019, West Bengal [Pan:Aaacj6956B] Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate, Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Advocate & Shri K.K. Chhaparia, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.N. Barnwal, Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 07, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: September 30, 2025 O R D E R

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

total income of the assessee at (-)Rs.28,81,49,180/- by making the addition/disallowance of Rs.84,523/- u/s 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act towards employees’ contribution of 2 Jupiter International Limited Provident Fund and ESIC deposited by the assessee-company and Rs.2

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Sheth Realtors, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4008/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Sheth Realtors Income-Tax Officer-7(1) Vasant Oasis, Site Office, [Erstwhile Ito-23(3)(3)] Upper Basement, Mumbai Cts No 345A 1 To 3, Vs. 345A 5 To 6, Makwana Road, Marol, Andheri East., Mumbai – 400059 [Pan: Aavfa3975F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Sheth Realtors Income-Tax, Central Circle 12Th Floor, Hallmark Business 7(1), Vs. Plaza, Sant Dyaneshwar Marg Mumbai Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 [Pan: Aavfa3975F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate & Shri Rahul Hakani, Advocate Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee & Revenue Are Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) 49, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024- Assessment Year 2017-18 25/1075205796(1), Dated 28.03.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income-Tax Officer, Ward-23(3)(3), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 30.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee & Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: I. Ita No. 2712/Mum/2025 [Assessee]

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate and Shri Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)

employees contribution to PF & ESIC is paid before the filing of IT return than there would not be any disallowance under Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of 1.T. Act. 4. Ground No. 4 - Addition of Rs. 10,31,540/- under section 41(1) of the Income

Sheth Realtors, Mumbai vs. ITO-7(1) (Erstwhile ITO-23(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2712/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Sheth Realtors Income-Tax Officer-7(1) Vasant Oasis, Site Office, [Erstwhile Ito-23(3)(3)] Upper Basement, Mumbai Cts No 345A 1 To 3, Vs. 345A 5 To 6, Makwana Road, Marol, Andheri East., Mumbai – 400059 [Pan: Aavfa3975F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Sheth Realtors Income-Tax, Central Circle 12Th Floor, Hallmark Business 7(1), Vs. Plaza, Sant Dyaneshwar Marg Mumbai Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 [Pan: Aavfa3975F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate & Shri Rahul Hakani, Advocate Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee & Revenue Are Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) 49, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024- Assessment Year 2017-18 25/1075205796(1), Dated 28.03.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income-Tax Officer, Ward-23(3)(3), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 30.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee & Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: I. Ita No. 2712/Mum/2025 [Assessee]

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate and Shri Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)

employees contribution to PF & ESIC is paid before the filing of IT return than there would not be any disallowance under Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of 1.T. Act. 4. Ground No. 4 - Addition of Rs. 10,31,540/- under section 41(1) of the Income

Shell International Petroleum Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation -4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4712/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrishell International Dy. Commissioner Of Petroleum Company Income –Tax (International Limited Taxation) 4(2)(1), Mumbai C/O B S R & Co. Llp, 2Nd 17Th Floor, Room No. 1708, Air Vs. Floor, Lodha Excelus, India Building, Nariman Point, Apollo Mills Compound, Mumbai N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai 400011 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaics0357B (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररतीकीओरसे/ Assessee By: Shri. Madhur Agrawal/ Ms. Reema Grewal /Revenue By: Shri Satya Pal Kumar Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Dy. Cit (It), Mumbai Dated 27.09.2023 Passed As Per The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agrawal/For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 2(24)Section 9(1)(vi)

receipts from General BSS are in nature of cost-recharge pursuant to Cost Contribution Agreement ('CCA') which does not constitute income under section 2(24) of the Act and hence not taxable in India. Receipts from General BSS does not qualify as Fees for Technical Services ('FTS') 4. Erred ... constitutes income without appreciating the facts that the said receipts are in nature of reimbursements and hence does not constitute income under section 2(24) of the Act and hence not taxable in India. Receipts towards software license charges does not qualify as Royalty

Amanta Healthcare Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the order of the Ld

ITA 1088/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 43B

Employee’s contribution of Provident Fund not paid within the due date Rs.10,65,599/-, which was to be considered as income under Section 2(24)(x) of the Act. 2.1 Therefore, the Ld. PCIT had held that the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial

Cdc Gola Comitte Phardan, Lakhimpur Kheri vs. ITO Range-3(4), Lakghimpur Kheri

The appeal are dismissed

ITA 55/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2018-19 Cdc Gola Comitte Phardan V. The Income Tax Officer Ayyubi Chamber Range 3(4) Raniganj Lakhimpur Kheri-1 Lakhimpur Kheri (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aaalc0542R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 5Section 6Section 80P

ACIT vs. N.S. Committee, Muzaffarnagar in ITA No.1541/DEL/2008, wherein, vide order dated 04.04.2012, the Tribunal had held that as per definition provided in section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 grant-in-aid is not be included in income and that further grant ... financial aid or subsidy given by the State Government of UP & Sugar factories for the specific purpose of construction of roads. In section 2(24) of the Act, it is declared that " 'income' includes" various items which are enumerated therein in clauses (i) to ITA No.55/LKW/2024 Page

Rishi Parkash, Sonipat vs. Income Tax Officer, Sonipat

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 3230/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 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

Jain Ware House, Seoni vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Seoni

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 208/JAB/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Abhijeet Shrivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194ISection 2(24)(xviii)Section 250Section 69A

receipt of Rs.24,99,700/-, which he observed to have been received on transfer from MMDC account. Applying the provisions of section 2(24)(xviii)(a), he thereupon proceeded to make the addition under section 69A. 3. Aggrieved with the said addition, the assessee filed an appeal before ... Jain Ware House 44AD, the ld. AO had created a demand under section 69A and also erred in applying section 2(24)(xviii)(a) and created an enormous demand. It was, therefore, prayed that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to present its case before

Atamjeet Singh Sandhu, Mohali vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 644/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

dated 12.10.2022). It was contended that the Apex Court has categorically held that employees’ contribution to PF and ESI, being income under section 2(24)(x), is allowable as deduction only if deposited within the due dates prescribed under the respective welfare legislations. It was further contended that section

Atamjeet Singh Sandhu, Mohali vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 643/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

dated 12.10.2022). It was contended that the Apex Court has categorically held that employees’ contribution to PF and ESI, being income under section 2(24)(x), is allowable as deduction only if deposited within the due dates prescribed under the respective welfare legislations. It was further contended that section

Atamjeet Singh Sandhu, Mohali vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 642/CHANDI/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

dated 12.10.2022). It was contended that the Apex Court has categorically held that employees’ contribution to PF and ESI, being income under section 2(24)(x), is allowable as deduction only if deposited within the due dates prescribed under the respective welfare legislations. It was further contended that section

Animesh Mukherjee, Durgapur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Durgapur

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

ITA 1903/KOL/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Suvo Chakraborty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 22(4)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

both assessment years is disallowance of employee's contribution to provident fund and ESI in terms of Section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) read with section 43B of the 2 ITANo.1902&1903/Kol/2024 Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Therefore, we deem it not necessary to reproduce ... orders of the authorities below. The AO disallowed the employees contribution to PF & ESI u/s.36(1)(va) read with section 43B read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act on the basis of tax audit report issued by the auditor in form 3CD where the auditor has provided

Animesh Mukherjee, Durgapur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Durgapur

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

ITA 1902/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Suvo Chakraborty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 22(4)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

both assessment years is disallowance of employee's contribution to provident fund and ESI in terms of Section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) read with section 43B of the 2 ITANo.1902&1903/Kol/2024 Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Therefore, we deem it not necessary to reproduce ... orders of the authorities below. The AO disallowed the employees contribution to PF & ESI u/s.36(1)(va) read with section 43B read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act on the basis of tax audit report issued by the auditor in form 3CD where the auditor has provided

Shyam Metalics Amd Energy Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1074/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Shyam Metalics & Engery Ltd…...………..............................……….……Appellant 83, Trinity Tower, 7Th Floor, Topsia, Kol-700046, [Pan: Aahcs5842A] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata…………………………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Praveen Kishore, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 15, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.04.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

Section 250Section 68

subsidy, the Court also considered as to whether when a receipt is not in the character of income as defined under section 2(24) of the Act, whether it can be said to form part of the book profit under section 115 JB. The said question was answered in favour ... incentives 'Interest subsidy' and 'Power subsidy' is a 'capital receipt' and does not fall within the definition of 'Income' under section 2(24) of Income-tax Act, 1961 and when a receipt is not on in the character of income it cannot form part of the book profit under section

Sri Sainath Associates, Lucknow vs. Dy.CIT-6, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 649/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)

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

DCIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata vs. Spml Infra Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 440/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 13Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 80Section 80I

former forms part of the employers’ income, and the latter 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