← 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)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1 Tirupur, Tirupur vs. Armstront Knitting Mills, Tirupur

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

ITA 1429/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1429/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri S.B. Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri Suraj Nahar, CA
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 250

Limited in ITA 31928/Chny/2017subsequently. 4. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law in not appreciating the provisions of sub-clause (xviii) of section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act, which covers any incentive from any scheme of government within the scope of Income. 5. For these and other ... issue on merits in favour of the assessee. The FAA held that even after the amendment by Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f 01.04.2016 to Section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act, the receipts from sale of MLFPS license will be capital receipt and not taxable. The relevant finding

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1 Tirupur, Tiruppur vs. Armstrong Knitting Mills, Tirupur

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

ITA 1422/CHNY/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1422/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S.B. Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri Suraj Nahar, CA
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 250

Limited in ITA 31928/Chny/2017subsequently. 4. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law in not appreciating the provisions of sub-clause (xviii) of section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act, which covers any incentive from any scheme of government within the scope of Income. 5. For these and other ... issue on merits in favour of the assessee. The FAA held that even after the amendment by Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f 01.04.2016 to Section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act, the receipts from sale of MLFPS license will be capital receipt and not taxable. The relevant finding

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

Leshark Global LLP, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals for A

ITA 3183/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 56Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Leshark Global LLP, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals for A

ITA 3182/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 56Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, \u2018A\u2019 BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Leshark Global LLP, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals for A

ITA 3181/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 56Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Leshark Global LLP, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals for A

ITA 3180/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 56Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Leshark Global LLP, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals for A

ITA 3179/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 56Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Leshark Global LLP, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals for A

ITA 3178/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 56Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Leshark Global LLP, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals for A

ITA 3177/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 56Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2113/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri. H. P. Mahajani, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2(24)(viii)Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 250

Appellant for earlier years. c) The Industrial Promotional Subsidy ought to be treated as Capital receipt even in the light of amended section 2(24)(xviii) for normal provisions as well as book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act. Your Appellant reserves the right to add to, alter or amend ... According to the assessee, industrial promotional subsidy is ought to be treated as capital receipt even in the light of amended section 2(24)(viii) for normal provisions as well as book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act. 4. Assessee did not raise this issue in the assessment proceedings though

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

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

Income Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward, Trichy vs. Arulmigu Swaminatha Swami Thirukkovil, Kumbakonam

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 370/CHNY/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 370 & 368/Chny/2025 & Co Nos.32 & 33/Chny/2025 (In Ita Nos.: 370 & 368/Chny/2025) धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Arulmigu Swaminatha Swami Exemptions Ward, Trichy, Thirukkovil, Vs. The Executive Officer, Swamimalai, Kumbakonam – 612 301. [Pan: Aaata-6446-J] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri. P. Krishna Kumar, J.C.I.T. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objections Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15, Vide Order Dated 20.12.2024. Since The Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objections Filed By The Assessee Were Heard & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri. P. Krishna Kumar, J.C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate
Section 10Section 11Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147

denial of exemption on technical breach would defy the principles of fairness in taxation. 31. We find that the definition of income in Section 2(24)(iia) of the Act, the voluntary contribution does not generally have the character of income but deemed income in case of non-corpus donations

The Income Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward, Trichy vs. Arulmigu Swaminatha Swami Thirukkovil, Kumbakonam

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 368/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 370 & 368/Chny/2025 & Co Nos.32 & 33/Chny/2025 (In Ita Nos.: 370 & 368/Chny/2025) धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Arulmigu Swaminatha Swami Exemptions Ward, Trichy, Thirukkovil, Vs. The Executive Officer, Swamimalai, Kumbakonam – 612 301. [Pan: Aaata-6446-J] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri. P. Krishna Kumar, J.C.I.T. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objections Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15, Vide Order Dated 20.12.2024. Since The Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objections Filed By The Assessee Were Heard & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri. P. Krishna Kumar, J.C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate
Section 10Section 11Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147

denial of exemption on technical breach would defy the principles of fairness in taxation. 31. We find that the definition of income in Section 2(24)(iia) of the Act, the voluntary contribution does not generally have the character of income but deemed income in case of non-corpus donations

Shell Information Technology International Bv, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation )-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1750/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2(24)Section 234BSection 270A

only arrangement and the receipts were reimbursements being in the nature of cost allocation without markup and hence does not constitute 'income' under section 2(24) of the Act; Receipts from Key Application Service („KAS‟) providers and Shell group entities towards software access treated as „royalty‟ under

Sylvan Greens Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 414/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Bhala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 801C

conscious above the fact that issue of taxing the subsidy income by changing the definition vide Finance Act 2015. Vide that amendment in section 2(24)(xviii) any form of subsidy was brought into definition of income but that section is not retrospective and therefore, even 33 ITA NO.414.JPR/2025

Cane Development Council Mansoorpur, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Ward- 2(5), Muzaffarnagar

In the result, appeals of assessees in ITA Nos 1783/DEL/2012,

ITA 4076/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 234A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘F’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH

Cane Development Council Mansoorpur, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Ward- Exemption, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeals of assessees in ITA Nos 1783/DEL/2012,

ITA 2617/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 234A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘F’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH

Cane Development Council, Mansoorpur, Uttar Pradesh vs. JCIT, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, appeals of assessees in ITA Nos 1783/DEL/2012,

ITA 1885/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 234A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘F’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH