← 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)

M/S G.G Agricultural Industries, Barnala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 786/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal Under The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). The Relevant Assessment Year Is Assessment Year 2018-19. The Corresponding Previous Year Is From 01.04.2017 To 31.03.2018. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By An Order Bearing No. Itba/Rec/M/154/2023-24/1057512359(1) Dated 30.10.2023 Under Section 150/250(6) Of The Act In First

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT Sr. DR
Section 150Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 250(6)Section 253Section 36Section 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 ITA 786/CHD/2023

Zahir Kasam Memon, Mumbai vs. Addl-JCIT (A)-2, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 914/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2019-20 Zahir Kasam Memon Addl-Jcit (A) -2 Memon Brothers, Chennai, Pinjarwada, Tamil Nadu. Kumbharwada, Vs. Zenda Bazar, Vasai (West).-401201. Pan:Aempm1407R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Murtaza Quresh Ghadiali- CA &For Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh-
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 253(3)Section 253(5)Section 36(1)(va)

employer's responsibility to deposit the amounts received or deducted. Employees' contribution is treated as income under Section 2(24)(x), and for claiming a deduction, the deposit must occur on or before the due date as specified in the respective Acts. 6.5 Furthermore, the components involved in contributions ... return itself, CPC is obligated to correct it without additional procedural requirements". f. Legal Principle of Strict Compliance: Statutory compliance is paramount. Sections 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va) are specific in their requirements for timely deposit of employee contributions, with Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income

Nalwadi Charitable Trust, Delhi vs. ITO Ward Exemp 2(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1778/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.1778/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2020-21) Nalwadi Charitable Trust, B-60/61, C/O Bajaj Auto Limited, Naraina Industrial Area Phase-Ii, New Delhi 110028 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaatn-0324-N

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, Advocate and Shri Mahendra Gohel, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12(1)Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

ld.DR that since section 11(d) specifically exempts corpus donation , therefore corpus donations are to be treated as income in terms of section 2(24)(iia) of the Act need not to be dealt with by us, considering the uniform view taken by the ITAT on the issue as above

Indorama Ventures Oxides Ankleshwar Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4023/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Shri. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 56(2)(x)Section 928(2)

total income of the previous year. This would take us to the meaning of the word income under the Act as defined in Section 2(24) of the Act....” The Ld.AR submitted that Pertinently, CBDT vide its Instruction No. 2/2015 dated 29/01/2015 has accepted the aforesaid decision

Vaidyanathan Kalaivani, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1542/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. A.S. Sriraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Niay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 56(2)

terms and conditions relating thereto to be chargeable to tax under the head, Income from Other sources. Further clause (xviib) was inserted in section 2(24) so as to include any compensation or other payment referred to section 56(2)(xi) in the definition of income". 31. The amendment ... replies."The faceless Assessing Officer and the review unit have failed to look into the provisions of Section 56(2)(xi) read with section 2(24)(xviib) and also the CBDT circular No. 8 of 2018 dated 26.12.2018. Even the memorandum to the Finance Bill, 2018 explains the reasons behind

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Nagpur vs. M/S Raghav Finvest Pvt Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 121/NAG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

High Court wherein it has been held as under. "The word income for the purpose has a well understood meaning as defined in section 2(24). This even when the definition in section 2(24) is an inclusive definition. It cannot be disputed that income will not in its normal ... meaning include capital receipts unless it is so specified, as in section 2(24)(vi). In such a case, capital gains chargeable to tax under section 45 are, defined to be income. The amounts received on issue of share capital including the premium is undoubtedly on capital account. Share premium

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nagpur vs. M/S Nihal Gits Pvt.Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 95/NAG/2018[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2012-2013

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

High Court wherein it has been held as under. "The word income for the purpose has a well understood meaning as defined in section 2(24). This even when the definition in section 2(24) is an inclusive definition. It cannot be disputed that income will not in its normal ... meaning include capital receipts unless it is so specified, as in section 2(24)(vi). In such a case, capital gains chargeable to tax under section 45 are, defined to be income. The amounts received on issue of share capital including the premium is undoubtedly on capital account. Share premium

Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Nagpur vs. Vishnu Gilts Pvt.Lt, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 237/NAG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

High Court wherein it has been held as under. "The word income for the purpose has a well understood meaning as defined in section 2(24). This even when the definition in section 2(24) is an inclusive definition. It cannot be disputed that income will not in its normal ... meaning include capital receipts unless it is so specified, as in section 2(24)(vi). In such a case, capital gains chargeable to tax under section 45 are, defined to be income. The amounts received on issue of share capital including the premium is undoubtedly on capital account. Share premium

Aptiv Connection Systems India Private Limited, Kochi, Kerala vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Ernakulam, Kerala

ITA 749/COCH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

circumstances of the case, the action of AG of adding the employees' share of PF to total income of the appellant under Section 2(24)(x) of the Act is bad in law. The NFAC has also erred in upholding the said addition. 3. That in view of the facts

Aptiv Connection Systems India Private Limited, Kochi, Kerala vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi, Kerala

ITA 736/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

circumstances of the case, the action of AG of adding the employees' share of PF to total income of the appellant under Section 2(24)(x) of the Act is bad in law. The NFAC has also erred in upholding the said addition. 3. That in view of the facts

Aptiv Connection Systems India Private Limited, Kochi, Kerala vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi, Ernakulam, Kerala

ITA 735/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

circumstances of the case, the action of AG of adding the employees' share of PF to total income of the appellant under Section 2(24)(x) of the Act is bad in law. The NFAC has also erred in upholding the said addition. 3. That in view of the facts

Thamanna, Mysore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income, Circle-2(1), Mysore

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

ITA 1188/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

paid within due date provided under the respective statutes, it has to be treated as income of the concerned assessee under section 2(24)(x) of the Act. In accordance with the statutory provision, the departmental authorities have made the disallowances. 7. The assessee has contested the disallowance broadly ... section 36(1)(va) makes it clear that in respect of any sum received by an assessee from his employees, to which section 2(24)(x) applies, the assessee can get deduction only if such sum is credited to the employees' accounts in the relevant fund or funds

Samsung R & D Institute India Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 6, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 625/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 625/Bang/2020 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, CIT-DR
Section 28Section 40Section 92C

record to take a view that these assets were held as capital. A plain reading of Section 28(i)(iv) read with section 2(24) would show that there is no bar in receiving benefit/perquisite in the form of an asset. The requirement of the section

Kalindee Estates Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

ITA 770/JPR/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Oct 2024AY 2010-2011
For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, "B" JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Everest Human Resource Consultants, New Delhi vs. ITO, Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2191/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareeka.Yr. : 2019-20 Everest Human Resource Consultants, Vs. Ito, Ward 44(1), Room No. 102, Rzf1/382, Gali No. 2, Civic Centre, Palam Dabri Road, Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi New Delhi -110 045 (Pan: Aaffe2184A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Lal Verma, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

2 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

M/S. Geena Garments, Tiruppur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Tiruppur

ITA 1823/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1823/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Geena Garments Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of S.F. No. 410, R.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Circle 1, Pichampalayampudur B.O., Tirupur. Tiruppur 641 603. [Pan: Aagfg6962K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Suraj Nahar, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2024 आदेश/Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.04.2024 Passed By The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Nahar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(xviii)

business or profession. He argued that the receipt on transfer of MEIS license is not an incentive as per the provisions of section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act. The Id. AR relied on the decision of the Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case for the assessment year ... Union of India (supra) clearly held the subsidy and concession are fall under the definition of income as provided in the amendment to section 2(24) by insertion of sub-clause (xviii) by Finance Act, 2015. Therefore, we have to consider as to whether in the present case, the sale

Adani Electricity Mumbai Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The AO, CPC, Banglore (Jurisdictional AO : the Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1)), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 543/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied." Further, Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that the legal definition under Section 2(24)(x) includes employee contributions as Adani Electricity Mumbai Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2019-20 - 4– part of income, allowing a corresponding deduction when such payments

Arihant Retail Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT-1, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1308/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1308/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Arihant Retail Private Limited, Principal Commissioner Of 29, Namachivaya Chetty Street, V. Income Tax -1, Old Washermanpet, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 021. [Pan: Aaics-3648-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024

For Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 69C

been deposited by the due dates prescribed as per the provisions of the Employee's State Insurance Act. As per the proviso to section 2(24)(x) the employee's contribution to PF/ESIC shall be treated as deemed income if the same is not paid within the due date

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Samagra Wealthmax Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the learned AO is dismissed

ITA 2165/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Samagra Wealthmax Income Tax, Private Limited, Central Circle-3(4) 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre Room No. 1915, 19Th 37-40 Vs. Floor, Subhash Road, Air India Building, Vile Parle East, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 057 Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaqcs5451E

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule – CIT
Section 19Section 41(1)

amalgamation cannot be regarded as revaluation reserve. It is evident that the capital reserve 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

Gandhinagar District Co.Op.Milk Producers Union Limited, Gandhinagar vs. The ACIT, Circle Gandhinaga, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 513/AHD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.513/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Gandhinagar District Co- The Asst.Cit बनाम/ Op.Milk Producers Union Ltd. Circle, Gandhinagar V/S. K. Road, Gidc Electronics Estate Sector-25, Gandhinagar Gujarat – 382 024 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaajg 1061 B (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

relied on the order of lower authorities. The DR stated that the grant is taxable in accordance with section Sub-Clause (xviii) in Section 2(24) of the Act. In rebuttal, the AR stated that the question is not whether it is taxable or not but the timing when ... purposes. We also note the argument of DR that the grant received by the assessee falls under the definition of "income" as per Section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act, which includes assistance in the form of subsidies or grants received from the government or any other authority and they