← 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)

Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Energy Solution Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

ITA 739/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountαντ Μεμβer

For Appellant: Dhanesh Bafna a/wFor Respondent: Anil Sant

Learned AO/DRP have erred in 9.1 9.2 Prayer Disallowing an amount of INR 9,72,450 under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act towards employees provident fund and ESIC contribution which was deposited before the due date of filing of return of income

DCIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. National Bank of Agriculture An Rural Development, Mumbai

ITA 4010/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

assessee, wherein he had held that the income related to RIDF does not fall in the definition of income as per section 2(24) of the Act. He further held that taxing RIDF amount would tantamount to taxing the expenditure of GOI since the entire amount is dedicated fund meant ... submissions of the assessee and held that the impugned amount of Rs.682.55 crores does not fall under the definition of income as per section 2(24) of the Act. He held that the margin of 0.50% retained by the assessee alone shall constitute income of the assessee. Accordingly, he deleted

DCIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. National Bank of Agriculture An Rural Development, Mumbai

ITA 4009/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

assessee, wherein he had held that the income related to RIDF does not fall in the definition of income as per section 2(24) of the Act. He further held that taxing RIDF amount would tantamount to taxing the expenditure of GOI since the entire amount is dedicated fund meant ... submissions of the assessee and held that the impugned amount of Rs.682.55 crores does not fall under the definition of income as per section 2(24) of the Act. He held that the margin of 0.50% retained by the assessee alone shall constitute income of the assessee. Accordingly, he deleted

DCIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. National Bank of Agriculture An Rural Development, Mumbai

ITA 4008/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

assessee, wherein he had held that the income related to RIDF does not fall in the definition of income as per section 2(24) of the Act. He further held that taxing RIDF amount would tantamount to taxing the expenditure of GOI since the entire amount is dedicated fund meant

DCIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. National Bank of Agriculture An Rural Development, Mumbai

ITA 4007/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

assessee, wherein he had held that the income related to RIDF does not fall in the definition of income as per section 2(24) of the Act. He further held that taxing RIDF amount would tantamount to taxing the expenditure of GOI since the entire amount is dedicated fund meant ... submissions of the assessee and held that the impugned amount of Rs.682.55 crores does not fall under the definition of income as per section 2(24) of the Act. He held that the margin of 0.50% retained by the assessee alone shall constitute income of the assessee. Accordingly, he deleted

DCIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. National Bank of Agriculture An Rural Development, Mumbai

ITA 4006/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

assessee, wherein he had held that the income related to RIDF does not fall in the definition of income as per section 2(24) of the Act. He further held that taxing RIDF amount would tantamount to taxing the expenditure of GOI since the entire amount is dedicated fund meant

Chiripal Industries Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 708/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 708/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 Chirpal Industries Limited, D.C.I.T, Chirpal House, Vs. Circle-1(1)(2), Shivranjani Cross Road, Ahmedabad. Satellight, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aaacc8513B

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr.DR
Section 116JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 80Section 80I

proceedings noted above. 13. The aforesaid view is also fortified by the legislature in view of amendment as per sub clause (xviii) to Section 2(24) of the IT Act as inserted by the Finance Act, 2015 which reads as under: “[(xviii) assistance in the form of a subsidy

Superwell Services Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 22(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 298/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

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

M/S. Bulk Liquid Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rajagopal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 30Section 32Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

credited by the assessee to the employee’s account in the relevant fund or funds on or before the due date”. iii. Section 2(24)(x) refers to only employee welfare fund contributions and does not refer to Profession Tax as under: “any sum received by the assessee from

M/S Coastal Energen Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1483/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1481/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1482/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1483/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Coastal Energen Private Limited Acit बनाम No.5, Bhuhari Building, Moores Road, Central Circle-1(1), / Vs. Egmore, Chennai-600 004. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcc-0886-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (Ca)- Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri N. Balakrishnan (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 14-03-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-03-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16 To 2017-18 Arise Out Of The Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai [Cit(A)] Dated 31-10-2023 In The Matter Of Separate Assessments Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao]

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri N. Balakrishnan (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 32Section 43(6)

acquired in the earlier year and hence, it was held that it had no effect u/s 43(1) or u/s 43(6) and section 2(24)(xviii) also would not apply for the relevant year as it was effective from 1.4.2016 only. Thus, the said case was related to waiver

M/S Coastal Energen Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1482/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1481/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1482/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1483/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Coastal Energen Private Limited Acit बनाम No.5, Bhuhari Building, Moores Road, Central Circle-1(1), / Vs. Egmore, Chennai-600 004. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcc-0886-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (Ca)- Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri N. Balakrishnan (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 14-03-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-03-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16 To 2017-18 Arise Out Of The Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai [Cit(A)] Dated 31-10-2023 In The Matter Of Separate Assessments Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao]

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri N. Balakrishnan (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 32Section 43(6)

acquired in the earlier year and hence, it was held that it had no effect u/s 43(1) or u/s 43(6) and section 2(24)(xviii) also would not apply for the relevant year as it was effective from 1.4.2016 only. Thus, the said case was related to waiver

M/S Coastal Energen Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1481/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1481/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1482/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1483/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Coastal Energen Private Limited Acit बनाम No.5, Bhuhari Building, Moores Road, Central Circle-1(1), / Vs. Egmore, Chennai-600 004. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcc-0886-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (Ca)- Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri N. Balakrishnan (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 14-03-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-03-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16 To 2017-18 Arise Out Of The Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai [Cit(A)] Dated 31-10-2023 In The Matter Of Separate Assessments Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao]

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri N. Balakrishnan (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 32Section 43(6)

acquired in the earlier year and hence, it was held that it had no effect u/s 43(1) or u/s 43(6) and section 2(24)(xviii) also would not apply for the relevant year as it was effective from 1.4.2016 only. Thus, the said case was related to waiver

Indica Industries P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 12(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2565/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshindica Industries Pvt. Ltd, Vs. National Faceless A-4, Greater Kailash, Appeal Centre, South Delhi, Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaaaci0233Q

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: None
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 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

Ayur Green Ayurveda Hospitals Private Limited, Malappuram vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 565/COCH/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Mar 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmiayurgreen Ayurveda Hospsitals Vs Dcit, Private Limited Cpc, Door No. 1/301 Ayurgreen Bengaluru. Ayurveda Hospitals, Kaladi Mlp Edappal, Malappuram-679585. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaica 4294 M

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 2Section 30Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

lapse from part of the assessee warranting to the addition by invoicing the provisions of section 36(1)(va) and section 2(24(x). 6. This issue was raised in a prominent newspapers at that time. The said newspaper cuttings has been attached herewith for your kind perusal and records ... According to this section any sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of section 2(24)(x) will be allowed as deduction, if such sum is credited by the assessee to the employee's account in the relevant fund or funds

Kutumbh Care Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-14(4), Delhi

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

ITA 1482/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmakutumbh Care Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, 216A, 2Nd Floor, Gautam Ward-14(4), Nagar, New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadck0946K

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 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

The Nehru Memorial Education Society, Kanhangad vs. ITO Exemptions, Kannur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 159/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Nehru Memorial The Income Tax Officer Education Society (Exemptions), Kannur Lakshmi Nivas Vs. Kanhangad - 671315 Kasaragod [Pan:Aabtt0633M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2

which we had earlier directed for examining the exclusion of the income to the extent of Rs.11.19 lakh (para 3.2). In Sum 4. Section 2(24)(iia) of the Act, defining income, makes no exception for a voluntary contribution received toward corpus, so that it is income by definition, though

Kalipada Saha, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward 24(3), Hooghly

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1447/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg&Shri Rajesh Kumar]

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

specifically inserted by the Finance Act, 1987, w.e.f. 01-04-1988. Through the same amendment, by Section 3(b), Section 2(24) – which defines various kinds of "income" – inserted clause (x). This is a significant amendment, because Parliament intended that amounts not earned by the assessee, but received ... separately dealt with in different clauses of Section 36 (1). All these establish that Parliament, while introducing Section 36(1)(va) along with Section 2(24)(x), was aware of the distinction between the two types of contributions. There was a statutory classification, under the IT Act, between

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

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 2315/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Provident Fund, ESI and other welfare funds, not appreciating that the Employee's contribution to PF & ESI is governed by the provisions of section 2(24) read with section 36(1)(va) and by section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961('the Act') 2. Whether on the facts

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

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 6506/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Provident Fund, ESI and other welfare funds, not appreciating that the Employee's contribution to PF & ESI is governed by the provisions of section 2(24) read with section 36(1)(va) and by section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961('the Act') 2. Whether on the facts

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

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 6296/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Provident Fund, ESI and other welfare funds, not appreciating that the Employee's contribution to PF & ESI is governed by the provisions of section 2(24) read with section 36(1)(va) and by section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961('the Act') 2. Whether on the facts