← 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-7(1), New Delhi vs. Eagle Hunter Solutions Ltd, Nee Delhi

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

ITA 2149/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek K. Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 194Section 194CSection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

erred in deleting the addition amounting to Rs. 2,04,44,135/- in violating of the provisions of Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) on account of delayed payment of employee contributions towards PF/ESI.” 3. Perused the material before us and heard the arguments of ld. DR. Delay ... dates under the relevant provisions of the Act. The Assessing Officer ruled that by virtue of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act, such sums received by the appellants constituted "income". It was held that those amounts could not have been allowed

DCIT, C-1 (E), Chandigarh vs. M/S Shri Aurobindo Socio Economic & Management Research Institute, Ludhina

In the result, whereas the assessee's appeal in ITA

ITA 1375/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)

therein. The corpus donations are, thus, eligible corpus donations, requiring exemption under the provisions of Section 11(1)(d) read with those of Section 2(24)(iia) of the Act. 8.4 Exemption u/s 11 of the Act has been denied to the assessee, as in the earlier year ... preceding paragraphs, we have held the corpus donations to be eligible for exemption u/s 11(1)(d) read with Section 2(24)(iia) of the Act. In accordance therewith, on parity of facts in the year under consideration also, Ground No.6 is accepted and exemption on corpus donation

Sir Aurobindo Socio Economic & Management Research Institute, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, C-1 (E), Chandigarh

In the result, whereas the assessee's appeal in ITA

ITA 1348/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)

therein. The corpus donations are, thus, eligible corpus donations, requiring exemption under the provisions of Section 11(1)(d) read with those of Section 2(24)(iia) of the Act. 8.4 Exemption u/s 11 of the Act has been denied to the assessee, as in the earlier year ... preceding paragraphs, we have held the corpus donations to be eligible for exemption u/s 11(1)(d) read with Section 2(24)(iia) of the Act. In accordance therewith, on parity of facts in the year under consideration also, Ground No.6 is accepted and exemption on corpus donation

Goribi Abdul Karim Nadaf, Pune vs. Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals), Addl JCIT (A) -1 Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 517/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 2(24)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

assistance. 4. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to take note of the relevant statutory provision in this regard. Section 2(24) provides that `income’ includes: `(x) any sum received by the assessee from his employees as contributions to any provident fund or superannuation fund or any fund

Goribi Abdul Karim Nadaf, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl JCIT (A) 1 - Ahmedabad, Addl/JCIT (A) Ahmedabad

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

ITA 516/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 2(24)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

assistance. 4. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to take note of the relevant statutory provision in this regard. Section 2(24) provides that `income’ includes: `(x) any sum received by the assessee from his employees as contributions to any provident fund or superannuation fund or any fund

Dipti Garg, Tonk vs. ITO WD, Tonk

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 633/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Dr. S Seethalakshmi

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

immovable property being also ITA 300 to 302/JP/2019_ Sh. Yogesh Maheshwari Vs. DCIT & 2 Ors. 11 property read with definition of income in Section 2 (24) (xv) of the Act. Therefore, in our view, Section 56 (2) (vii) (b) of the Act is to be read with explanation (d) wherein

M/S.G.S. Atwal & Co.(Engg)(P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1009/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 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

M/S.G.S. Atwal & Co.(Engg) (P)Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1008/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 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

M/S. Humara India Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 33, Kolkata

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

ITA 135/KOL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Apr 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Humara India Credit Acit, Circle-33, Co-Operative Society Limited Kolkata 101, 227/2 Mangal Jyoti Vs Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata- 700020. Pan: Aaaah 8186 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Parveen Kumar Bansal, Ar Revenue By : Shri S. Datta, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.12.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeals, Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’].

For Appellant: Shri Parveen Kumar Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

hands of assessee and added to the income of the assessee. In view of the provisions of section 2(24)(x) of the Act read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The ld. AO also noticed that the assessee has failed to deposit TDS relating to certain expenses

Bijender Singh Lohia, New Delhi vs. JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-26, New Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 1529/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sunita Verma, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 2(24)(iv)Section 69C

account of unexplained cash expenditure but sustaining and restricting the same to Rs.16,57,222/- by modifying the said addition under section 2(24)(iv) of the IT Act, 1961. 4.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred on facts as well as in law in not accepting the contention ... appellant were met by the company, the said amount is chargeable as income of the appellant as per the provisions of section 2(24)(iv) of the Act. iii) The CIT(A) gave the benefit of opening cash balance in the aforesaid cash book to the extent

Bijender Singh Lohia, New Delhi vs. JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-26, New Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 1528/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sunita Verma, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 2(24)(iv)Section 69C

account of unexplained cash expenditure but sustaining and restricting the same to Rs.16,57,222/- by modifying the said addition under section 2(24)(iv) of the IT Act, 1961. 4.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred on facts as well as in law in not accepting the contention ... appellant were met by the company, the said amount is chargeable as income of the appellant as per the provisions of section 2(24)(iv) of the Act. iii) The CIT(A) gave the benefit of opening cash balance in the aforesaid cash book to the extent

Kairali Exports, Kilimanoor vs. ACIT Circle 1(2), Trivandrum

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 130/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Anil Kumar Dugar, Jm

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 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

Jameson Abraham, Kollam vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Trivandrum

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 979/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasjameson Abraham Principal Commissioner Emmanuel Cashes Industries Of Income Tax Chepara P.O., Kottarakara Vs. Thiruvananthuparam Kollam 691520 [Pan: Afopa7312Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial

Abalabba Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-12(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2949/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri M M Golvala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 2(24)Section 234BSection 57(2)Section 69Section 698Section 69B

transfer". The assessee also submitted that the difference cannot be added since such transaction does not fall within the definition of income under section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act (the Act). The AO did not accept the submissions of the assessee and proceeded to make an addition ... that the addition cannot be made under section 69/69B of the Act. The assessee further submitted that the addition cannot be made under section 2(24) since the impugned transaction is not covered under the definition of "income". The assessee also contended that the provisions of section 57(2

Mehsana Taluka Madhyamik Teachers Credit & Consumers Sahakari Mandali Ltd, Mehsana vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Present Ward-1, Mehsana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Ms. Madhumita Roy (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hasmukh V. Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-D.R. &
Section 57Section 80Section 80P(2)(d)

restate that for the purposes of Section 80P of the Act, the principle of mutuality has been obliterated in view of insertion of Section 2(24) (viia) of the Act by Finance Act, 2006 and such principles thus no longer serve as strict guiding principle to test the relief eligible

M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd), Mumbai vs. Dy Comm of Income Tax- Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 320/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri BFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

incentives 'Interest subsidy' and 'Power subsidy' is a 'capital receipt' and 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 profit under section ... aforesaid receipts from the book profit under section 115 JB on the ground that the said subsidies do not constitute income under section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?." 8.10 The Hon'ble High Court answered the question in negative and in favour of the assessee by observing

DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd., ( Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are

ITA 1176/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. बनाम / M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd Vs. (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. Cross Objection No.51/Mum/2023 (Arising Out Of I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023) (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. बनाम / Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Vs. Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 320/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) बनाम / Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci1220M 2

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri BFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

incentives 'Interest subsidy' and 'Power subsidy' is a 'capital receipt' and 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 profit under section ... aforesaid receipts from the book profit under section 115 JB on the ground that the said subsidies do not constitute income under section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?." 8.10 The Hon'ble High Court answered the question in negative and in favour of the assessee by observing

DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd., ( Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1175/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. बनाम / M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd Vs. (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. Cross Objection No.51/Mum/2023 (Arising Out Of I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023) (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. बनाम / Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Vs. Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 320/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) बनाम / Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci1220M 2

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri BFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

incentives 'Interest subsidy' and 'Power subsidy' is a 'capital receipt' and 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 profit under section ... aforesaid receipts from the book profit under section 115 JB on the ground that the said subsidies do not constitute income under section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?." 8.10 The Hon'ble High Court answered the question in negative and in favour of the assessee by observing

DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd., ( Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1172/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri BFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

incentives 'Interest subsidy' and 'Power subsidy' is a 'capital receipt' and 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 profit under section ... aforesaid receipts from the book profit under section 115 JB on the ground that the said subsidies do not constitute income under section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?." 8.10 The Hon'ble High Court answered the question in negative and in favour of the assessee by observing

Shell Information Technology International Bv, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4 (2) (1), Mumbai

ITA 3339/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2024AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 2(24)Section 234ASection 234BSection 270A

only arrangement and the receipts were reimbursements being in the nature of cost allocation without markup and hence does not constitute 'income' under section 2(24) of the Act, Receipts towards IT Support services held as 'Fees for Technical Services'('FTS') under the Act as well as India-Netherlands DTAA