“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)

Chandra Goswami, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi vs. Addl JCIT, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 3230/DEL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2025AY 2020-2021

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

M/S Ayodhya Development Authority (Formely Ayodhya Faizabad Development Authority), Lucknow vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

ITA 145/LKW/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh Mradul AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ghiyasuddin CIT(DR) & Sh.Mazahar Akram, CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 58

develop the city, in order to attract the tourism. Such receipts were not the income of the appellant within the meaning of section 2(24) of the Act, as the institution receiving such grant had to spend the funds on the projects specified in the Government order. It was further

M/S Ayodhya Development Authority(Formerly Ayodhya Faizabad Development Authority), Ayodhya vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

ITA 143/LKW/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh Mradul AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ghiyasuddin CIT(DR) & Sh.Mazahar Akram, CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 58

M/S Ayodhya Faizabad Developement Authority, Faizabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

ITA 520/LKW/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh Mradul AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ghiyasuddin CIT(DR) & Sh.Mazahar Akram, CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 58

M/S Ayodhya Faizabad Developement Authority, Faizabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

ITA 518/LKW/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh Mradul AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ghiyasuddin CIT(DR) & Sh.Mazahar Akram, CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 58

Capacite Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT/DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

ITA 6316/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMRJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 271ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

respect of disallowance of INR.23,67,555/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act in respect of employee’s contribution to the Provident Fund (PF) and Employee State Insurance Corporation (ESI) which was deposited belatedly ... only if the deposit is made by the employer on or before the due date specified in the applicable statute in view of Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The non- obstante clause under Section 43B or anything contained in therein would

Capacite Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT/DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

ITA 6308/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMRJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani

Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

respect of disallowance of INR.1,57,53,261/-, made under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act. The appeal preferred by the Assessee challenging the levy of the aforesaid penalty was dismissed by the CIT(A) vide order, dated 15/10/2024. Being aggrieved the Assessee ... only if the deposit is made by the employer on or before the due date specified in the applicable statute in view of Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The fact that employees’ contribution towards PF/ESI has been made before the due date

Ivtl Infoview Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-II(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2916/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2916/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Ivtl Infoview Technologies Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, No.2/319, 3F, Corporate Circle Ii(2) Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai 600 034. Oggiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 600 097. [Pan: Aaaci 7550A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. S. Vidhya, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Pushpa Hemachand, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vidhya, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Pushpa Hemachand, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

citing that the contributions were made after the statutory deadlines under the PF and ESI Acts, and therefore are deemed as income under Section 2(24)(x) and disallowed under Section 36(1)(va). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services

Sukiba Management Services Private Limited, Nashik Maharashtra vs. ACIT Circle 1 Nashik, Nashik Maharashtra

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

ITA 1790/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 438

admitted fact that employees' contribution towards PF/ESI was deposited beyond the due dates prescribed under the relevant Acts. As per the provisions of Section 2(24)(x) of the Act, any contribution received by the appellant from its employees towards EPF and ESIC is the income in the hands

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CC-3(2), Central Range-3, Mumbai, Air India Building, Nariman Point vs. Aarti Durgs Limited, Sion (E)

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3071/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri Vipul JainFor Respondent: Dr. K. R. Subash &

Section 139Section 14ASection 2(24)Section 250

amendment in Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.04.2016 which ultimately culminated into the taxing belt with the due insertion of sub-clause (xviii) in Section 2(24) of the IT Act, 1961 providing an inclusive definition of the expression income' under the tax law, which includes assistance in the form ... amendment in Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f 01.04.2016 which ultimately culminated into the taxing belt with the due insertion of sub- clause (xviii) in Section 2(24) of the IT Act, 1961 providing an inclusive definition of the expression 'income' under the tax law, which includes assistance in the form

DCIT CC 3(2), Central Range-3, Mumbai, Air India Building, Nariman Point vs. Aarti Durgs Limited, Sion (E)

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3070/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri Vipul JainFor Respondent: Dr. K. R. Subash &

Section 139Section 14ASection 2(24)Section 250

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CC-3(2), Central Range-3, Mumbai, Air India Building, Nariman Point vs. Aarti Durgs Limited, Sion (E)

ITA 3068/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri Vipul JainFor Respondent: Dr. K. R. Subash &

Section 139Section 14ASection 2(24)Section 250

Amjad Ahmadbhai Sheikh, Nagpur vs. DCIT/ACIT-Circle-3, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 565/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Laxman AndaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)

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. The assessee appealed to CIT(A), NFAC submitting the facts that

Diebold Nixdorf India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Diebold Systems Private Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6136/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(ea)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

Thus, he treated such contribution made towards PF & ESIC as ‘income of the assessee’ in terms with section 2(24)(x) of the Act and added an amount of Rs.1,66,084/- to the income of the assessee. Though, the assessee contested the aforesaid addition before learned first appellate authority

Diebold Nixdorf India Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6135/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(ea)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

M/S Varsha Construction, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 5/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 5/Rpr/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Varsha Construction, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Second Floor-25, 26, Millenium Plaza, S Tax, Circle-1(1), Central Revenue Raipur-492 001, Chhattisgarh Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, C.G.. Pan: Aaefv 8399 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""थ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Tarannum Verma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2025 : 22.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Mr. Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Tarannum Verma, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 249(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

approach indicated in the ruling in Alom Extrusions. As noticed previously, Alom Extrutions did not consider the fact of the introduction of Section 2(24)(x) or in fact the 8 other provisions of the Act. 52. When Parliament introduced Section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only ... long periods. That Parliament intended to retain the separate character of these two amounts, is evident from the use of different language. Section 2(24)(x) too, deems amount received from the employees (whether the amount is received from the employee or by way of deduction authorized by the statute

Smt. Usha Sharma, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 480/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Eagle Hunter Solutions Vs Commissioner Of Income Limited Tax (Appeals)-25 61C, Kalu Sarai, Sarvapriya New Delhi Vihar, New Delhi-110016 Pan: Aabce0565E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 270A(2)Section 270A(2)(a)Section 36(1)

28/11/2024 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2020-21. 2.Grounds taken in this appeal are as under: “1. Disallowance as per the provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w. section 36(1) (va)- The Assessment Unit Income Tax Department has erred in law as well as on facts in adding ... 2,27,08,114/- as per the provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w. section 36(1) (va) on account of delayed payment of employee contribution towards PF/ESI. 2 Eagle Hunter Solutions Ltd. Vs. CIT(A) 2. Penalty Proceedings initiated u/s 270A(2)(a)- The Assessment Unit Income Tax Department

Nandlal, Patna vs. ITO, Patna

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

ITA 16/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 2(24)Section 250

executed a JDA with the developer and that on execution of the JDA, transfer of the land as per the provisions of section 2(24) of the Act was complete. He, therefore, calculated the notional income that accrued to the assessee on execution of the JDA. However, in the grounds

Ashfaque Ahmed Mecca, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3100/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Shri Vinod D. Mudaliar, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 2(24)(iv)Section 37(1)

said sum cannot be added as a perquisite in the hands of the assessee Director. The ld.AR submitted that the provisions of section 2(24)(iv), 17(2)(iv) & 28(iv) of the Act is not applicable as the company has already disallowed the expenditure in its hands. Hence ... both the Company and the assessee, which is contrary to the principle that an amount cannot be taxed twice. iii) The provisions of Sections 2(24)(iv), 17(2)(iv), and 28(iv) of the Act are not applicable since the disallowed expenditure has already been taxed in the hands

Ashfaque Ahmed Mecca, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3099/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Shri Vinod D. Mudaliar, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 2(24)(iv)Section 37(1)