“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)

Nalni Sanjeev Nadkarni, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 1981/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhri

Section 147Section 234BSection 274

corpus fund towards hardship caused to flat owners on redevelopment, impugned amount has to be treated as capital receipt simplicitor which as per Section 2(24)(vi) of the Act is not taxable as income of the assessee. In this regard, we find it profitable to reproduce para

Capitalg International Llc (Formerly Known As Gc Aisa L.L.C.), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1632/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2024AY 2017-2018

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘K’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

M/S. Housing Development Finance Corp. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir. 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 7447/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Khargone vs. The Income Tax Officer National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed”

ITA 180/IND/2024[2022-23]Status: HeardITAT Indore01 Jul 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2022-23 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Cpc / Nfac Bank Maryadit, बनाम/ 33,Khandwa Road, Vs. Khargone (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaatj0529K Assessee By Shri Subhash Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 01.07.2024

Section 14BSection 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

issue involved in present appeal is the disallowance of Rs. 27,58,025/- made by AO u/s 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) on account of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund (P.F.) collected by assessee but not deposited upto the due date under

Sri. Amit Kumar Rajendra Prasad Singh, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 306/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR

Section 139Section 143Section 234ASection 250Section 36

additional evidences filed by both the assessees before us. 8.2 The ld. A.R. placed following arguments in respect of this contention: 2.1 “Section 2(24)(x) of the Act deems that the sums received by an assessee from his employees as contributions to any welfare fund, shall be treated ... same cannot be treated as the income of the assessee. Section 36(1)(va) provides a deduction of sums referred to in section 2(24)(x), if the such sum is credited by the assessee to the employee’s account in the relevant fund on or before the due date

Global Security Services, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 150/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Akshaya K.S., CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

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

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Jefferies Llc, Mumbai

ITA 1026/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

For Respondent: “i. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in the law, the

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 153Section 250Section 9

allowed while taxing the fees for included services, the amount of reimbursement also should be added with the fees for included services. Section 2(24)(iva) also considers these payments as income of the services provider. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Cochin Refineries

DCIT It 3.1.1, Mumbai vs. Jefferies Llc, Mumbai

ITA 1023/MUM/2024[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024

For Respondent: “i. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in the law, the

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 153Section 250Section 9

Agarwalla Teakinternational (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Circle-1(2), Delhi

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

ITA 110/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Kanav Bali, Sr. DR

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

Appeal Centre has also erred both in law and on facts in upholding disallowance of Rs. 2,26,692/- by invoking provision of section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4 That even otherwise the adjustments so made in the intimation

Cidco Employees Co-Op. Credit Society, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-28(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, Tax Appeals are dismissed

ITA 600/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Cidco Employees Ward 28(1)(3), 3Rd Floor, Co. Op. Credit Society Ground Floor, Tower No. 6, Vs. Cidco Bhavan, Vashi Railway Station, Cbd- Belapur, Commercial Complex, Navi Mumbai- 400614. Mumbai- 400703. Pan: Aaaac2230N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For : Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. R. Makwana- Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana- SR. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(24)(viia)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Appellant u/s.80P over the years and has continued to allow the same even after the insertion of Section 80P (4) and Section 2(24)(viia) with effect from 1st April 2007 on the statute book by Finance Act 2006. However, the AO has disturbed the said position in the current

Thyssenkrupp Uhde India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1030/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Thyssenkrupp Uhde Deputy Commissioner Of India Private Limited Income Tax- 15(3)(1) Uhde House, Room No.460, Vs. 4Th Floor, L.B.S. Marg, Vikhroli (W.), Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai- 400083. M. K. Road, Pan: Aaacu1416H Mumbai- 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri M. M. Golvala A/W. Shri Hormuzd Jamshedji, A.R. Revenue By : Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. Cit), Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13 . 06 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26 . 06 . 2024 O R D E R Per : Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act [The ‘Act’ In Short] Vide Its Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-24/1059614356(1) Dated 11/01/2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2 M/S. Thyssenkrupp Uhde India Private Limited

For Appellant: Shri M. M. Golvala a/w. Shri HormuzdFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. CIT), SR. D.R

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

retain the 7 M/s. Thyssenkrupp Uhde India Private Limited 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 ... 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

Shriram Dadaji Matte, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 180/NAG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri R.K. GaneriwalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(3)Section 14A

income made the adjustment of ` 50,040, in the return of income on account of deemed income under section 36(1)(va) r/w section 2(24)(x) of the Act for the late deposit of employee’s contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC on the ground that these payments were ... 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

Shriram Dadaji Matte, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 179/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri R.K. GaneriwalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Marda Collections Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and further directions as per para 8 are issued to the AO

ITA 71/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri B. K. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 4Section 43B

2. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in holding that professional tax deducted from employees salary is deemed income under section 2(24)(x). 3. Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred in holding that unpaid professional tax deducted from employees salary is covered under 43B(a) of the Income ... same as exempt and it was also contested that the unpaid professional tax was also not income of the assessee as defined in section 2(24) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) held that as per Article 276(2) of the Constitution of India, the employers are required

Indiyaa Distribution Network LLP, Indore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Indore

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

ITA 258/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2018-19 Indiyaa Distribution Dy. Cit, Network Llp, 1(1), 11D, Sampat Farm, Indore. Opp.Agrawal Public बनाम/ School, Vs. Bicholi Mardana Road, Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aarfg1302N Assessee By Ms.Ruchira Singhal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2024

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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 other provisions of the Act. 52. When Parliament introduced section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer ... 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

Gaurav International, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 49(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3315/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3315/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Gaurav International Acit B-34, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Vs. Circle-49(1), Phase-1, West, New Delhi. Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. Pan No.Aaafg5920D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

sustaining the disallowance made in respect of employees contribution to PF & ESI u/s 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. I.T.A.No.3315/Del/2023 2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the written submissions contends that the contributions for the month of April, 2016 were deposited

Gemmological Institute of India, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemp) - 1(3), Mumbai

ITA 4055/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Padmavathy S.

Section 11Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 250

charitable trust and not of a business entity as has been claimed by the appellant/assessee. The Ld. DR has further referred to Section 2(24)(iia) of "the Act" and submitted that the voluntary contributions received by a trust created for charitable purposes or by an institutions established for such ... settled legal proposition that voluntarily contribution towards the corpus are outside the scope of income as defined in Section 2(24)(iia) due to their capital nature and are not taxable. iii. As mandated by the donors, out of total donations of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- the appellant purchased

Muniyallappa Bharathi, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3)(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands dismissed

ITA 841/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Subramanya Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 25oSection 36(1)(va)Section 43

DCIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi vs. Delhi Financial Corporation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1616/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri G.K. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Doi, Sr. DR

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

Company received only Rs. 35,31,056/- as employees' contribution to Provident Fund and therefore, due to default in compliance of provisions of section 2(24)(x) read with section36(1)(va), there could have been maximum addition of the same amount i.e. Rs. 35,31,056/- 13. We have

Chededeepu Srinivas, Hyderabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-14(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 209/HYD/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jun 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Reddy, AR appeared for Shri Santi Pavan Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 139(1)Section 234BSection 36Section 37

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