← 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 4(2), Delhi, I.P.Estate vs. Bureau Veritas Consumer Products Services(India) Pvt. Ltd., Lajpat Nagar

ITA 3158/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

decision of Apollo Tyers Ltd. (supra) concluded that as interest and power subsidy do not fall in the definition of income under section 2(24), it cannot be included as book profit under section 115JB. The ld. Counsel invited attention to a catena of other cases on the same principle

Jt.Commissioner of Income-Tax(OSD), Satara vs. Kute Sons Dairys Limited, Satara

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 226/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri R. Y. Balawade, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 43(1)

capital receipt and not taxable. 6.1. He submitted that the Finance Act, 2015, significantly altered the landscape by introducing sub-clause (xviii) to Section 2(24) of the Act, according to which, any assistance in the form of subsidy, grant, cash incentive, duty drawback, waiver, concession, or reimbursement provided ... deemed a capital receipt (and not taxable). The Finance Act, 2015, significantly altered the landscape by introducing sub-clause (xviii) to Section 2(24) of the Act. This amendment defined any assistance in the form of subsidy, grant, cash incentive, duty drawback, waiver, concession, or reimbursement provided by the Central

R K Swamy Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1427/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1427/Chny/2024 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri L.Shibi, C.A HIFor Respondent: Shri Phanidharan, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, supra, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court after interpreting section 36(1)(va) of the Act and :- 6 -: section 2(24)(x) of the Act has held that employees contribution of PF/ESI can be allowed as deduction only, if it had been paid within

Condor Footwear (India) Limited, Surat vs. The PCIT, Surat-1, Surat

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

ITA 336/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.336/Srt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Condor Footwear (India) Limited, Vs. The Pcit – 1, Plot No. A-5/3, Road No.10, Main Surat Gate No.2, Hojiwala Industrial Esta, Vanz, Surat, B.O. - 394230 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacc9540N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07/01/2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(a)Section 80G

allowable. Further, assessee had paid Rs.8,79,551/- received from employees to the provident fund of superannuation fund mentioned in section 2(24)(x) of the Act after the due date. Such amount had to be disallowed u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court

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

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2059/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)

without appreciating the fact that the receipts from General BSS are in nature of cost- recharge which does not constitute as 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. Without ... constitutes 'income' without appreciating that the receipts are in nature of cost allocation and hence does not constitute income under section 2(24) of the Act and hence not taxable in India. Receipts towards access to SUN (software) application does not qualify as Royalty 6. Without prejudice to the above

All Services Global Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6083/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice Preisident & Smt. Renu Jauhriall Services Global Pvt. V/S. Dcit, Circle 4(1)(1), Ltd. बनाम Mumbai Ag 3. Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai Estate, Village Pahadi, Maharashrra-400001 Near Hub Mall, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaeca7278D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Kapil SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia
Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) contribution and Employees' Provident Fund (EPF) contribution during the year from Form 3CD. Ld. AO invoked the provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) to hold that the assessee company had defaulted in making the payment by the due date and, therefore, disallowed

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee’s for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17

ITA 6766/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu,CITDR

Provident Fund, ESI and other welfare funds, not appreciating that the employees contribution to PF & ESI is governed by the provisions of section 2(24) read with section 26(1)(va) and by section 43 B of the Act. 37. At the time of hearing, ld. DR for the Revenue

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee’s for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17

ITA 6487/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu,CITDR

Provident Fund, ESI and other welfare funds, not appreciating that the employees contribution to PF & ESI is governed by the provisions of section 2(24) read with section 26(1)(va) and by section 43 B of the Act. 37. At the time of hearing, ld. DR for the Revenue

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addlcit, Special Range-4, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee’s for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17

ITA 6508/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu,CITDR

Provident Fund, ESI and other welfare funds, not appreciating that the employees contribution to PF & ESI is governed by the provisions of section 2(24) read with section 26(1)(va) and by section 43 B of the Act. 37. At the time of hearing, ld. DR for the Revenue

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addlcit, Special Range-4, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee’s for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17

ITA 6507/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu,CITDR

Provident Fund, ESI and other welfare funds, not appreciating that the employees contribution to PF & ESI is governed by the provisions of section 2(24) read with section 26(1)(va) and by section 43 B of the Act. 37. At the time of hearing, ld. DR for the Revenue

Addl.CIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi vs. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee’s for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17

ITA 6298/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu,CITDR

Provident Fund, ESI and other welfare funds, not appreciating that the employees contribution to PF & ESI is governed by the provisions of section 2(24) read with section 26(1)(va) and by section 43 B of the Act. 37. At the time of hearing, ld. DR for the Revenue

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Hindustan Coca- Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee’s for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17

ITA 6297/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu,CITDR

Provident Fund, ESI and other welfare funds, not appreciating that the employees contribution to PF & ESI is governed by the provisions of section 2(24) read with section 26(1)(va) and by section 43 B of the Act. 37. At the time of hearing, ld. DR for the Revenue

Shri Mukesh Rasiklal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-9, Now Circle-4(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 3218/AHD/2015[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Dec 2024AY 1993-94

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh R. Shah – Party in personFor Respondent: Shri Karun Kant Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153Section 250

recovery is also upheld, as it aligns with statutory provisions of the Act as well as judicial precedents. 17. Further, the provision of Section 2(24) of the Act is an inclusive definition and does not differentiate between legality or illegality of earning of income. By subjecting the amount

Shri Mukesh Rasiklal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-9, Now Circle-4(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 3217/AHD/2015[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Dec 2024AY 1992-93

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh R. Shah – Party in personFor Respondent: Shri Karun Kant Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153Section 250

recovery is also upheld, as it aligns with statutory provisions of the Act as well as judicial precedents. 17. Further, the provision of Section 2(24) of the Act is an inclusive definition and does not differentiate between legality or illegality of earning of income. By subjecting the amount

Renita Christopher Dias, Vasai West vs. Assessing Officer - Ward 4(3) Thane, Thane

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

ITA 5787/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarrenita Christopher Dias V/S. Assessing Officer - Ward 4(3) Miracle Villa Near New बनाम Thane, Room No. 14, A Wing, Green Park Society, Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Wagle Karkhun Bhat, Papady – Industrial Estate, Thane – 401 207, Maharashtra 400 604, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Clvpd5679Q Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Mr. Rahim RajwaniFor Respondent: Shri Balasaheb Nagve (Sr. DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 69

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

M/S. Piaggio Vehicles Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 4, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 868/PUN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.868/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Piaggio Vehicles Private Ltd., V The Assistant Sky One Corporate Park, S Commissioner Of Income Ground Floor, Survey Tax, Circle-4, Pune. No.239/02, Near Pune Airport, Pune – 411032. Pan: Aabcp1225G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Siddhesh Chaugule – Ar Revenue By Shri Vidya Ratan - Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-13, Pune For Assessment Year 2015-16 Dated 06.10.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Refund Of Excess Taxes Paid On Dividend Distributed On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Granting The Benefit Of Article 11 Of The India-

Section 115Section 2(24)Section 250Section 3Section 4

company, was within the fold of Entry 82 of the Constitution, which embraces the entire field of "tax on income" d. Referring to section 2(24) of the Act, it noted that the definition of "income" includes "dividend" and hence, it held that imposition of additional tax on dividend ... learned DR, the Supreme Court while dealing with the constitutional validity of Sec.115 O of the Act has held that under section 2(24)(ii) dividend is included in ‘income’ and is thus covered by Entry 82 of List I to Seventh Schedule, “taxes on income, other than agricultural income

Kangra Valley Garden Hotels Private Limited, Kangra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, Dharamshala

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by

ITA 602/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)
Section 127(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253

ignoring that the same is not taxable in the hands of the appellant under section 56(2)(viib) read with section 5 and section 2(24)(xvi) of the Act. 7. The Ld. CIT(A)/Ld. AO have erred in levying interest under 234B

Kangra Valley Garden Hotels Private Limited, Kangra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, Dharamshala

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by

ITA 601/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)
Section 127(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253

ignoring that the same is not taxable in the hands of the appellant under section 56(2)(viib) read with section 5 and section 2(24)(xvi) of the Act. 7. The Ld. CIT(A)/Ld. AO have erred in levying interest under 234B

Kangra Valley Garden Hotels Private Limited, Kangra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, Dharamshala

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by

ITA 600/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)
Section 127(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253

ignoring that the same is not taxable in the hands of the appellant under section 56(2)(viib) read with section 5 and section 2(24)(xvi) of the Act. 7. The Ld. CIT(A)/Ld. AO have erred in levying interest under 234B

Karikunnam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Thodupuzha vs. ITO, Ward-1& Tps, Thodupuzha

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

ITA 364/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Snr. DR
Section 142Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

record. 7. As seen from the finding given in page 4 of the assessment order, which reads as follows: “Therefore, as per section 2(24)(viia) of the Income Tax Act,1961 inserted by the Finance Act, 2006, w.e.f. 1-4- 2007, the profits and gains of assessee's business