← 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)

DCIT-Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Diebold India Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5505/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2010-11
Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Valuelabs LLP, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle 8(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1609/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी. सं/Ita No.1609/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2020-21) Valuelabs Llp, Hyderabad. Vs. Dcit, Pan: Aakfv2276K Central Circle-8(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan, Ca राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of 06/03/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Firm Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 13/08/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act"), Dated 27/09/2022 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 23/11/2021. The Assessee Firm Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. U. Mini Chandran
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 250Section 80

that the income derived from the sale of RECs does not form part of 'business income within the meaning of the proviso to Section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act, and therefore, the same cannot be taxed as business income at the normal rate. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred

Late Abdullah Abdulmajeed, Rep. by L/H, Pudukkottai vs. ITO, Ward-1, Pudukkottai

ITA 3294/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH: CHENNΑΙ सुश्री पद्मावती एस, लेखा सदस्य

Raju Jada, Krishna Dist vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Machilipatnam

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose for both the assessment years

ITA 618/VIZ/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) has given five opportunities and also one show cause notice and required the assessee to establish the source of deposits and the amount paid to Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited. At the time of filing of

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 2(24)(ix)Section 69A

from other sources” as having been earned by way of winnings from lotteries, crossword puzzles, races, games, gambling, betting etc. referred to in section 2(24)(ix) of the Act. Such winnings entitled the assessee to, no claim of expenses or loss set off and the gross amount is taxed

Raju Jada, Manda Krishna vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Machilipatanam

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose for both the assessment years

ITA 617/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'ble (Judicial Member), Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon'ble (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 2(24)(ix)Section 69A

from other sources” as having been earned by way of winnings from lotteries, crossword puzzles, races, games, gambling, betting etc. referred to in section 2(24)(ix) of the Act. Such winnings entitled the assessee to, no claim of expenses or loss set off and the gross amount is taxed

Vidyut Employees Co-Operative Housing Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1878/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1878/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Vidyut Employees Co- The Dcit, Operative Housing Vs. Circle-6(1), Society, Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500 004. Pin – 500 034. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Aaaav5182H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Y V Bhanu Narayan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Suresh Babu Kn, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27.02.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri Y V Bhanu Narayan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri Suresh Babu KN, Sr. AR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250

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

Kaushal Kumar, Raniganj vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Asansol

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2619/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 43B

court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.” 5.8 Therefore, under the provisions of section 2(24)(x) of the Act, the contributions from employees are, firstly treated as deemed income and subject to tax in the hand of the employer ... appellant but contributions collected from the employees is obligatory in nature and is considered as deemed income as per provisions of the section 2(24)(x) of the Act. Therefore, in view of the above discussions, the AO is directed to make addition of Rs.22,89,194/- in appellant

Kaushal Kumar, Raniganj vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Asansol

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2618/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 43B

court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.” 5.8 Therefore, under the provisions of section 2(24)(x) of the Act, the contributions from employees are, firstly treated as deemed income and subject to tax in the hand of the employer ... appellant but contributions collected from the employees is obligatory in nature and is considered as deemed income as per provisions of the section 2(24)(x) of the Act. Therefore, in view of the above discussions, the AO is directed to make addition of Rs.22,89,194/- in appellant

Navin Vinodkumar Agarwal, Thane vs. DCIT 14(1)(2), Aayakar Abhavan Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

ITA 8445/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Respondent: Mr. Mahesh Saboo
Section 154

structure, tax is deducted on the estimated income under Section 192. The "income" as d estimated income under . The "income" as defined under Section 2(24) Section 2(24) includes various components, some of which includes various components, some of which may be exempt under Section

Bhupendra Flour Mills Pvt Ltd, Bathinda vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Bathinda

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of out above order

ITA 54/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Udayandasgupta, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.54/Asr/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Bhupendra Flour Mills Pvt Ltd. Ito Ward - 1(1) बनाम/ Railway Road Central Revenue Building Bhatinda, Punjab – 151001 Civil Lines, Bhatinda Vs. Punjab - 151001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccb-6192-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Farhat Khan (Cit) – Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Farhat Khan (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 10(37)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 145B(1)Section 194LSection 2Section 2(24)Section 36Section 4Section 45(5)

enhanced compensation to be taxable as Income from Other Sources, notwithstanding its earlier characterization under capital gains. (iv) A conjoint reading of Section 2(24), Section 2(28A), Section 4, Section 10(37), Section 14, Section 45(5), Section 56(2)(viii), Section 145B(1) and Section 194LA

Ameenamma Charitble Trust, Anantapur vs. ITO, (Exemption) Ward-Tirupati, Tirupati

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee Trust is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1841/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1841/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17) Ameenamma Charitable Vs. Income Tax Officer Trust, (Exemption) Ward – Anantapur. Tirupati. Pan: Aaeta7403P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ka Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri K Vamsi Krishna, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 20/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Trust Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai, Dated 03/10/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Tirupati (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 14/12/2018 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri KA Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri K Vamsi Krishna, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 115BSection 12ASection 13(9)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

reasons: i) “The provisions of sub-section (3) to section 115BBC holds that the anonymous donation means any voluntary contributions referred to in section 2(24)(iia) of the IT Act and in the instant case the amount of Rs 11,78,000/- are absolutely the donations/ contributions obtained

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Kolkata vs. West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Kolkata

ITA 748/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeydcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata..

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "D" BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan vs. West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 623/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.623 & 748/Kol/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata………...……………..……….……….……….……Appellant Vs. West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Limited......……...…..…..Respondent 23, A N Thakur Sarani, Circus Avenue, Kol - 700017.. [Pan: Aaacw3043Q] Appearances By: Shri B R Dutta, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 21, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 12, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 09.08.2024 Of The Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since Both The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & Arise From Same Appellate Order, Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & We Are Going To Dispose Of These Appeals By Passing A Consolidated Order. 2. Ita No.623 & 748/Kol/2025 Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 139 & 159 Days Respectively & The Revenue Has Filed Separate Petitions For Condonation Of The Delays. After Going Over The Said Petitions, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind Such Delays & Consequently, The Delays In Filing Both The Appeal Are Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeals On Merits.

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)

grant was in the nature of a capital receipt. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has considered the section 145B(3) and section 2(24)(xviii) and also decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Going over the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal

M/S. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. PCIT-4, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 434/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 263Section 43(1)

decision of the this Tribunal to the treatment of the same incentive in the Appellant’s own case, post amendment to Section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act, i.e, from AY 2016-17, wherein the AO and this Tribunal has treated the said subsidy as taxable under the Act, which ... applicable to the facts of the assessee’s case. In this connection, the Appellant reproduces the provisions of Section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act: :-14-: ITA. No:434/Chny/2025 “(xviii) assistance in the form of a subsidy or grant or cash incentive or duty drawback or waiver or concession

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1751/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalshell International Petroleum Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Company Limited Income Tax (International C/O B S R & Co. Llp, 2Nd Floor, Taxation) 4(2)(1), Lodhaexcelus, Apollo Mills Mumbai Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai 400011

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal and Shreyas Sardesai, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR
Section 144C(5)Section 2(24)Section 234BSection 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') 3 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 6. Erred in holding that

Marathi Bandhkam Vya vs. Ayik Association, Punevs.ITO, Exemption Ward-1(1), Pune

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

ITA 2310/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje (Virtual)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

banks by the 8 appellant club has to be treated like any other income from other sources within the meaning of section 2(24) of Income Tax Act, 1961.” 10. We also find that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case law also approved the order passed

Mhealth Ventures India P Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir-15(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6175/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2016-17 Mhealth Ventures India Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Ltd., Of Income Tax Circle 729H Raj Legacy, Lbs Marg, Vs. 15(2) (2), Andheri, Mumbai – 400083. Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Pan – Aagcm9200P Karve Road, Mumbai – 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Viraj Mehta, Ca (Virtually Appeared) Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.07.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessing Officer, Vide Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Has Made The Additions Of Rs.3,41,84,927/- & Rs.27,410/- Respectively Under Section 56(2)(Vii)(B) & Section 2(24)(X) As Deemed Income & Added The Same To The Income Of The Assessee. 2 Mhealth Ventures India Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, SR. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

made the additions of Rs.3,41,84,927/- and Rs.27,410/- respectively under section 56(2)(vii)(b) and section 2(24)(x) as deemed income and added the same to the income of the Assessee. 2 Mhealth Ventures India Pvt. Ltd. 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, though challenged

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Hindustan Unilever Limited, Mumbai

ITA 929/MUM/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 10BSection 145ASection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 801BSection 80H

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Hindustan Unilever Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT-1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue and cross-objection by the

ITA 1041/MUM/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 10BSection 145ASection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 801BSection 80HSection 8O

that the assessee is eligible for deduction of the same. It is also well known that the definition of the term “income” under section 2(24) of the Act is an inclusive definition. Further, the ITA No.1041 & 929/Mum/2018 & CO No.142/Mum/2019 (A.Ys. 2004-05) term “income” is a wide import ... earning of the ITA No.1041 & 929/Mum/2018 & CO No.142/Mum/2019 (A.Ys. 2004-05) ‘income’ that attracts the charge. ‘Income’ has been defined under Section 2(24) of the Act to include ‘dividend’. Therefore, the Authority has erred in not appreciating that Section 115-0 levies additional tax on the company

Kota Trucks P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 14(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2050/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Kota Trucks P. Ltd. Vs. Acit Bg-223, Sanjay Gandhi Circle -14(2) Transport Nagar, Gt New Delhi Karnal Road, New Delhi- 110042 Pan No.Aadck3550H Appellant Respondent Appellant Sh. Pratap Gupta, Ca (Virtual) Respondent Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr

Section 143(1)Section 2Section 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