← 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)

The Venus Parkland Co-Operative Housing Service Society Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1347/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

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

Section 143(3)

theory that a person cannot make a profit from himself. An amount received from oneself, therefore, cannot be regarded as income and taxable. Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act defines taxable income. The income of a co-operative society from business is taxable under Section 2(24

DCIT-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Airport Development Company Limited, Mumbai

ITA 87/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankarmaharashtra Airport V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Development Company बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 3(2)(1), Limited Room No. 608, Aayakar 8, World Trade Centre, Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Tower 1, 8Th Floor, Cuffe Road, Mumbai – 400020, Parade, Mumbai – 400005, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcm9623M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Deputy Commissioner Of V/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax, Circle – 3(2)(1), बनाम Development Company Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Limited, 8, World Trade Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Centre, Tower 1, 8Th Floor, Karve Road, Mumbai – 400 Cuffe Parade, Colaba S.O. 020, Maharashtra Mumbai–400005, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcm9623M Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 57

Airport of Rs. 42,14,00,000/- + Grant towards Other Airports (Repairs & Maintenance) of Rs. 2,52,84,704/-) by invoking provisions of Section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act without appreciating the explanations and documents placed on record by the appellant. c) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate

Maharashtra Airport Development Company Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 37/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 57

Shirdi Airport of Rs. 42,14,00,000/- + Grant towards Other Airports (Repairs & Maintenance) of Rs.2,52,84,704/-) by invoking provisions of Section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act without appreciating the explanations and documents placed on record by the appellant. c) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate ... upheld the addition concurring with the AO. He also observed that the impugned sum was also taxable in view of the provisions of section 2(24) (xviii)of the Act. 10. The ld.AR before us has argued that the grants received for maintenance of other airports was towards repairs

DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed, and the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4069/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry – Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta - CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 260ASection 43BSection 45Section 801ASection 801A(4)

words, the purpose test has to be applied. In support of this contention, various judicial pronouncements are available. Further, the amendment made in section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act, is effective from the assessment year 2016-17, as this appeal pertains to the assessment year prior thereto, the nature

Grasim Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed,

ITA 2897/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry – Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta - CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 260ASection 43BSection 45Section 801ASection 801A(4)

words, the purpose test has to be applied. In support of this contention, various judicial pronouncements are available. Further, the amendment made in section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act, is effective from the assessment year 2016-17, as this appeal pertains to the assessment year prior thereto, the nature

Ganesh Polychem Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-3(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2145/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Parekh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250

MEIS scrips in the open market is not an ‘income’ chargeable to tax being capital in nature within the meaning of provisions under section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act. In respect of the FPS, the ld. Counsel relied on the decision of the ITAT Chennai Bench in the case ... sale of scrips in the open market, do not partake the character of income but are capital receipts within the meaning of Section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act. The view of the High Court was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by dismissing the Special Leave Petition filed

Satya Pratap Singh Kunwar, Uttar Pradesh vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Ward 2(3), Faridabad, Haryana

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

ITA 984/DEL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)

justified in law and in making the addition of Rs.3,71,171/- u/s 154 of the Act in view of the provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of late deposit of employee contribution towards ESI and PF which has been duly ... assessee submitted that the issue involved is relating to addition of Rs.3,71,171/- in view of the provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) on account of delayed deposit of employees contribution to PF and ESI made in the intimation u/s 143(1) and subsequently vide

Selina N. Sheth, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -17(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the ground No

ITA 2352/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Selina N. Sheth Ito, Ward – 17(3)(1), M/S. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Esplanade House, 2Nd Floor, Mumbai – 400020. 29 Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400001. [Pan: Aabps9851L] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 10(38)Section 148Section 2(14)Section 254(1)Section 57

assessee by inviting my attention to the definition of ‘capital asset’ in section 2(14) and the definition of ‘income’ under section 2(24) submits that even after amendments were made denying exemption to redemption proceeds of certain ULIPs under section 10(10D) in 2003, no amendment was made ... ULIP, which Policies are not exempt under section 10(10D). Prior to this insertion in Section 56(2)(xiii) and correspondingly in Section 2(24)(xviid), there was no provision to tax the maturity proceeds of a Life Insurance Policy as income. This is besides the fact that even today

Ravinder Kumar Jha, Ghaziabad vs. The Accessing Officer, Ward- 2(2)(2), Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4179/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshsh. Ravinder Kumar Jha, Vs. The Assessing Officer, 1039, Near Old Magnum Ward-2(2), Ghaziabad Paper Mill Karkar, Jhandapur, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, Up, 201010, India Pan: Aippj0007P Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/08/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, 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

Sangamner Medical Foundation and Research Institute, Ahmednagar vs. Exemption Circle Aurangabad, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 900/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 115BSection 12ASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80G

list of donors submitted lacks credibility and may not accurately reflect the true nature of the alleged donations. Furthermore, Section 115BBC and Section 2(24)(iia) are included in the statute to prevent the introduction of unaccounted funds from the public or donors into charitable activities, irrespective of the fact

Rajesh Kumar Garg, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-49(1), Delhi

ITA 971/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

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

Section 139(1)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

Rajesh Kumar Garg, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-49(1), Delhi

ITA 970/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

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

Section 139(1)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

Ranbir Singh Sorout, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Faridabad

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 54/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43

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

Ranbir Singh Sorout, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Faridabad

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 52/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43

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

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Gvk Jaipur Expressway Pvt Ltd, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for the years [A

ITA 307/JPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us. Moreover, The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objections In Both The

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

been deducted from the salary and not deposited within the due date as prescribed under the relevant Act / Rule. Clearly the provision of section 2(24)(x)are applicable where this contribution is treated as deemed income of the assessee. Now deduction has to be claimed and provision of section

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Gvk Jaipur Expressway Pvt Ltd, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for the years [A

ITA 306/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us. Moreover, The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objections In Both The

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

been deducted from the salary and not deposited within the due date as prescribed under the relevant Act / Rule. Clearly the provision of section 2(24)(x)are applicable where this contribution is treated as deemed income of the assessee. Now deduction has to be claimed and provision of section

M/S Pramod Telecom Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow vs. DCIT/ACIT-3, Lucknow

In the result, in ITA. No

ITA 243/LKW/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Deepak Yadav, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

pointed out that clause 20(B) of Form 3CD, the tax audit report, specifically required the tax auditor to report sums coming under section 2(24)(x), with their due dates and actual date of payments of such sums, to the concerned authorities under section

M/S Pramod Telecom Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow vs. DCIT/ACIT-3, Lucknow

In the result, in ITA. No

ITA 242/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Deepak Yadav, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

pointed out that clause 20(B) of Form 3CD, the tax audit report, specifically required the tax auditor to report sums coming under section 2(24)(x), with their due dates and actual date of payments of such sums, to the concerned authorities under section

Akshat Education and Charitable Trust, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward- Exemption, Vadodara

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

ITA 457/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.457/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-2021 Akshat Education & Charitable The Income Tax Officer, Trust, बनाम Ward (Exemption), / 5/35, Gosainu Faliyu, Vadodara. V/S. Asodar Borsad Road, Asodar, Anand-388307. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaeta2211K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: ] ] This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Coimbatore [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 25.01.2025, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] For The Assessment Year 2020–21. The Impugned Order Arises Out Of The Akshat Education & Charitable Trust Vs. Ito(E) Assessment Year 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

available owing to late filing, the income is still to be computed on commercial principles as per section 4 read with section 2(24) of the Act. 9. The AR relied upon the following judicial precedents: H M V Educational Cultural & Social Trust v. ITO(E), ITA No. i. 9/Bang/2023 ... sustainable in law. Income-tax is a levy on "income" and not on "gross receipts". The term “income” as defined in section 2(24) of the Act and as understood under the charging section 4, contemplates computation on net basis, after deduction of legitimate expenditure incurred in earning such income

Sunrise Facilitators Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula

ITA 689/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.689/Chandi/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Sunrise Facilitators Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Circle बनाम/ Vs. 2238/5B, Shanti Nagar Aaykar Bhawan, Manimajra, Chandigarh. Sector 2, Panchkula "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaics-0850-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025. 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 Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 18-08-2022 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issued By Cpc U/S 143(1) On 15-09-2020 Disallowing Late Payment Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf / Esi For Rs.161.54 Lacs U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) As Reported By Tax Auditor In Tax Audit Report. The Ld. Cit(A)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar (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