← 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)

Cane Development Council, Mansoorpur, Uttar Pradesh vs. Addl. CIT, Muzaffarnagar

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

ITA 1783/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

Rajendra Kumar Tripathi, Delhi vs. AO, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s)

ITA 3225/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 3225/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2021-22 Rajendra Kumar Tripathi, Vs Cit(A)/Nfac 341, Heritage Tower, Plot No. 1, Income Tax Officer, Sector-3, Dwarka, Ward-56(3), New Delhi-110078 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abppt7714C Assessee By: Sh. Rajendra Kumar Tripathi Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.07.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2021-22 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074785307(1) Dated 20.03.2025, In Proceedings U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Kumar TripathiFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 246ASection 260ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

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

Sh. Abhay Kumar Godha, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 546/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 546/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Abhay Kumar Godha 750, Achariyon Ka Rasta, Kishan Pole Bazar Jaipur - 303 003 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ACIT Circle-1 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायी लेखा सं. / जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAPPG 4721K अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR स

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 69A

employees to the 6 SHRI ABHAY KUMAR GODHA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR relevant funds is the employer's income under Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act and the deduction for the same can be allowed only if such amount is deposited in the employee's account

Indian National Congress All India Congress Committee, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

ITA 1609/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 13ASection 143(3)

contributions received by a political party does not satisfy the requirement of Section 13Aof the Act, such contributions are in terms of Section 2(24) of the Act read with Section 14(F) and Section 56(1) of the Act taxable as 'income from other sources'. The corresponding expenditure incurred

Elsamex Maintenance Services Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle Gandhinagar, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 1215/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri T R Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Bhupal Rapelli, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 244ASection 36(1)(va)Section 41

unpaid employees’ contribution to PF and ESI was income of the assessee in accordance with provision of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. section 2(24)(x) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had examined the intention of the legislature and clarified the provision as it existed ... audit report which was considered as income of the assessee in accordance with provisions of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. section 2(24)(x) of the Act. We, therefore, upheld the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and the ground taken by the assessee is dismissed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara vs. M/S. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1785/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Ankit Metal & Power Ltd. reported in 416 ITR 591, held that items of receipt which are not income under the provision of section 2(24) of the Act cannot be made subject to tax under the provisions of MAT while calculating the profit under section ... 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

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1750/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Ankit Metal & Power Ltd. reported in 416 ITR 591, held that items of receipt which are not income under the provision of section 2(24) of the Act cannot be made subject to tax under the provisions of MAT while calculating the profit under section ... 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

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1741/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Ankit Metal & Power Ltd. reported in 416 ITR 591, held that items of receipt which are not income under the provision of section 2(24) of the Act cannot be made subject to tax under the provisions of MAT while calculating the profit under section ... 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

Income Tax Officer, Wanaparthy Block vs. Tamilnadu Special Police Employees Cooperative, Tsp Camp

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 363/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:363/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Income Tax Officer, Tamilnadu Special Police Non-Corporate Ward -7(3), Vs. Employees Cooperative, Chennai – 600 034. Avadi, Chennai – 600 054. [Pan:Aafat-0366-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.T. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. G. Reddi Prakash, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2020-21, Dated 11.10.2024. 2. At The Outset, We Find That There Is A Delay Of 34 Days In Appeal Filed By The Revenue, For Which Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Reasons For Delay Has Been Filed. After Considering The Petition Filed By The Revenue & Also Hearing Both The Parties, We Find That There Is A Reasonable Cause For The Revenue In Not Filing Appeal On Or Before The Due Date Prescribed Under The Law & Thus

For Appellant: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. G. Reddi Prakash, C.A
Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

specified activities in Section 80P(2) of the Act, would be eligible for deduction. The word "income" has been defined under Section 2(24)(i) of the Act to include profits and gains. This sub-section is an inclusive provision. The Parliament has included specifically "business profits into the definition

ITO Ward-4(1), Gurgaon vs. Sandeep Sandha, Gurgaon

ITA 1195/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Samyak Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 246ASection 260ASection 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH 'G', NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. S

Servokon Systems Ltd, Delhi vs. Income Taxofficer, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid conditions

ITA 4509/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 Servokon Systems Ltd., Vs Ito, C-13, Radhu Palace Road, Ward-23(1), Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. Delhi – 110 002. Pan: Aabcs2570D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Wahaj Ahmad Khan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Wahaj Ahmad Khan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

consequence of above-stated discussion, the prima facie disallowance of impugned contribution towards ESI and EPF under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act of 1961 made by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(1)(a) by order dated 16.12.2021 is hereby set-aside

Thermodyne Dynamics Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward -17(3), Hyderabad

ITA 500/HYD/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Us :

For Appellant: Shri Pawan KumarFor Respondent: Shri B. Balakrishna -CIT-
Section 11USection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 56

regarded as transfer under clauses (via), (vic), (vicb), (vid) and (vii) of section 47 of the Act. Consequential amendments are proposed in- (i) section 2(24), to include the value of such shares in the definition of income; (ii) section 49, to provide that the cost of acquisition of such

M/S Chatta Sugar Co. Ltd, Mathura vs. A.C.I..T Circle-3, Mathura

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 129/AGR/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra01 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH ‘DB’ AGRA (Through Physical/Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Palam Rural Centre, Tiruppur vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1560/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1560/Chny/2025 & S.A.No.51Chny/2025 [Arising In Ita No.: 1560/Chny/2025] िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2018-19 Palam Rural Centre, The Asst. Commissioner Of Pethampalayam, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions), Veerapandi S.O., Coimbatore. Tiruppur – 641 605. [Pan: Aaatp-2929-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Edser Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.T.

For Appellant: Shri. Edser Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.T
Section 11Section 12ASection 139

gross receipts without giving effect of the expenditures incurred by the assessee towards earning of the income. The income has been defined in section 2(24) of the Act., the income should be construed in its general meaning but not to the entire receipts, if the assessee has incurred

Ram Parsad Dav Public School Society, Markanda vs. ITO (Exemptions), Ward, Ambala

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

ITA 752/CHANDI/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(24)(iia)Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(c)

found the assessee neither registered under Section 12AA nor approved under Section 10(23C)(vi), rendering the donation taxable as income under Section 2(24)(iia) and ineligible for exemption under Section 11(1)(d). The AO recomputed the taxable income by adding the donation to gross receipts, resulting ... claim for exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) and the taxability of the donation 4 amounting to Rs. 2,52,325/- under Section 2(24)(iia). In light of these procedural lapses and the necessity for factual verification of the assessee’s claims, the matter is remanded to the file

Jt. Cti (OSD), Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

ITA 791/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 271

confirming disallowance of delayed payment of Rs.2,10,729/- to ESIC and Rs.2,51,103/- to Provident Fund as per provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w.s.36(l)(va) of the I.T. Act. 3) In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned ... learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming disallowance of delayed payment of Rs.9,34,222/- to ESIC as per provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w.s.36(l)(va) of the I.T. Act. Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT (Five Appeals) 3 3) In law and in facts and circumstances

Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

ITA 516/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 271

confirming disallowance of delayed payment of Rs.2,10,729/- to ESIC and Rs.2,51,103/- to Provident Fund as per provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w.s.36(l)(va) of the I.T. Act. 3) In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned ... learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming disallowance of delayed payment of Rs.9,34,222/- to ESIC as per provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w.s.36(l)(va) of the I.T. Act. Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT (Five Appeals) 3 3) In law and in facts and circumstances

The DCIT, Cir-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

ITA 2224/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 271

confirming disallowance of delayed payment of Rs.2,10,729/- to ESIC and Rs.2,51,103/- to Provident Fund as per provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w.s.36(l)(va) of the I.T. Act. 3) In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned ... learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming disallowance of delayed payment of Rs.9,34,222/- to ESIC as per provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w.s.36(l)(va) of the I.T. Act. Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT (Five Appeals) 3 3) In law and in facts and circumstances

M/S. Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

ITA 2008/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 271

confirming disallowance of delayed payment of Rs.2,10,729/- to ESIC and Rs.2,51,103/- to Provident Fund as per provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w.s.36(l)(va) of the I.T. Act. 3) In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned ... learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming disallowance of delayed payment of Rs.9,34,222/- to ESIC as per provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w.s.36(l)(va) of the I.T. Act. Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT (Five Appeals) 3 3) In law and in facts and circumstances

M/S. Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

ITA 2007/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 271

confirming disallowance of delayed payment of Rs.2,10,729/- to ESIC and Rs.2,51,103/- to Provident Fund as per provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w.s.36(l)(va) of the I.T. Act. 3) In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned ... learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming disallowance of delayed payment of Rs.9,34,222/- to ESIC as per provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w.s.36(l)(va) of the I.T. Act. 3) In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned