← 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)

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

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

ITA 5925/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

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 5903/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

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

Trimbak Konher Patil, Hubblli vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hubli

ITA 6/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

question of making a disallowance by the AO. It was contended that if at all, addition ought to have been made under section 2(24)(x) of the Act instead of making a disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. On a query by the Bench, the learned ... assessee for the Assessment Year 2018-19 is reproduced below for ready reference: “A. Under the Income Tax Act, as per provisions of section 2 (24) (x) following is considered as income which reads as follows: “any sum received by the assessee from his employees as contributions to any provident

Trimbak Konher Patil, Hubballi vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hubli

ITA 5/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Vinay Kulkarni, CA
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

question of making a disallowance by the AO. It was contended that if at all, addition ought to have been made under section 2(24)(x) of the Act instead of making a disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. On a query by the Bench, the learned ... assessee for the Assessment Year 2018-19 is reproduced below for ready reference: “A. Under the Income Tax Act, as per provisions of section 2 (24) (x) following is considered as income which reads as follows: “any sum received by the assessee from his employees as contributions to any provident

Upinder Kaur Khalsa Rao, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 35(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3670/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat, CAFor Respondent: 27.02.2024
Section 148Section 2(24)

appellant are related to capital assets and hence the nature of receipts in nature of money consideration is also capital in nature. iv. Section 2(24) is an exhaustive definition and does not include capital receipts. c) Thus in view of above, the Appellant therefore prays that addition ... been consistently holding that the such a receipt is capital in nature and does not fall within the ambit of income under section 2(24) of the Act. In this regard the relevant observations of the coordinate bench in the case of Lawrence Rebello vs ITO (ITA No.132/Ind./2020, dated

Jaiprakash Choudhary, Vadodara vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 310/AHD/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)

case of employee's contribution which were deducted from their income and was held in trust by assessee-employer as per section 2(24)(x), thus, said clause would not absolve assessee-employer from its liability to deposit employee's contribution on or before due date as a condition ... employee's income by way of deduction wherein one is liability to be paid by employer and second is deemed income as per section 2(24)(x) which is held in trust by assessee-employer, thus, said marked difference was to be borne while interpreting obligation of assessee-employer under

Jai Prakash Choudhary, Vadodara vs. The ADIT CPC, Bengluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 312/AHD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)

case of employee's contribution which were deducted from their income and was held in trust by assessee-employer as per section 2(24)(x), thus, said clause would not absolve assessee-employer from its liability to deposit employee's contribution on or before due date as a condition ... employee's income by way of deduction wherein one is liability to be paid by employer and second is deemed income as per section 2(24)(x) which is held in trust by assessee-employer, thus, said marked difference was to be borne while interpreting obligation of assessee-employer under

Jai Prakash Choudhary, Vadodara vs. The ADIT CPC, Bengluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 311/AHD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)

case of employee's contribution which were deducted from their income and was held in trust by assessee-employer as per section 2(24)(x), thus, said clause would not absolve assessee-employer from its liability to deposit employee's contribution on or before due date as a condition ... employee's income by way of deduction wherein one is liability to be paid by employer and second is deemed income as per section 2(24)(x) which is held in trust by assessee-employer, thus, said marked difference was to be borne while interpreting obligation of assessee-employer under

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Welspun Steel Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2169/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2017-2018
For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal/Shri Mani
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 19Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM

Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

ITA 1172/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, With Shri DhrunalBhatt, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 43BSection 80

after the due date of payment specified under the ESI Act. Thus, the AO by invoking the provisions of section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act added the same to the total income of the assessee. 11. On appeal by the assessee, the learned

Aniruddha Banerjee, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 29, Kolkata

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

ITA 690/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

being contribution of employees share towards ESI/PF set up for the welfare of the employee u/s 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when the payments were made within the due dates of filing of return

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-4(2), Central Range-4, Mumbai vs. M/S Neev Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1537/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Hakani, Ld. AR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN

Kamakshi Jute Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. Dcic, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, ITA No. 1073/KOL/2023 is dismissed

ITA 1073/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

made by the CPC, Bangalore invoking the provisions of section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with sections 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va) for the alleged delay in depositing the Employees Contribution to Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance under the relevant Act. 3. That ... disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) read with Page 2 of 7 I.T.A. No.: 1073/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Kamakshi Jute Industries Ltd. Section 2(24)(x) of the Act for delayed payments towards employees' contribution to PF&ESI. The employees' contribution to PF&ESI was made before due date

Arvinder Paul Jit Singh Gill, Chandigarh vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 325/CHANDI/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Nalin Nohria & Shri B.K.Nohria,CAsFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

relevant welfare ESI/PF schemes, it was held that the contribution by the employees to the relevant funds is the employer’s income under section 2(24)(x), but the deduction for the same can be allowed under section 36(1)(va) only if such sum is deposited in the employee

Radhakrishna Akshar Vikas Nyas, Vidisha vs. The ACIT 3 (1), Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 398/IND/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniradhakrishna Akshar Vikas Acit 3(1) Nyas Bhopal Vs. Braj Colony Sironj Vidisha (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaatr 8725M Assessee By S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2024

Section 11Section 115BSection 68

contribution and such other particulars as may be prescribed.]” 8. Therefore, the anonymous donation is defined as any voluntary contribution referred to in section 2(24)(iia) where a person receiving such contribution does not maintain a record of the identity indicating the name and address of the person making ... addition to identity, name and address of the person making the contribution, as provided under sub-section (3) of section 115-BBC. Section 2(24)(iia) gives definition of anonymous donation. Appellant (assessee) must first be shown to have received anonymous donation. 6. We have perused the assessment order

Shree Society, Visakhapatnam vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 271/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.271/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Shree Society Vs. Income Tax Officer 26-9-28, Wood Yard Street Ward-1(5) Near Reading Room Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aanas1911Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I Kama Sastry, AR)For Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

treat the total amount of PF and ESI contributions (both employer’s and employees’) aggregating to Rs.27,20,319/- as income under section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va). 6. All the above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to one another. 7. The appellant craves

Rajesh Motors (Cars) Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 5(1), Jaipur

ITA 649/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2024AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Godha CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 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 ... Appeal No.9009 of 2021 [2023] 147 taxmann.com 202 SC)]. The relevant head note is reproduced as under:- Section 36(1)(va), read with section 2(24) and 43B of the Income Tax Act – Employee's contributions (PF/ESI) – High Court by impugned order held that Tribunal was correct in deleting disallowance

C. Doctor & Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(1), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off on the

ITA 5654/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm

Section 139Section 143

return of income. Dis-allowance was made by the Assessing Office and confirmed by the CIT (A) by looking at the provisions of Section 2(24)(x) r/w Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Now this issue is squarely covered against the Assessee by the decision

Shreeomsingh Bhagwansingh Rawat, Vadodara vs. The ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru Present Juridiction the Dy.CIT Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 514/AHD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2020-21 Shreeomsingh Bhagwansingh The Dy.Cit Rawat Vs Circle-1(1)(1) 905/6, Gidc Makarpura Vadodara Vadodara 390 010 Pan: Aampr 5475 L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Parimalsinh B.Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Ms.Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07/02/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Ms.Suchitra Kamblethis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25/04/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” In Short] For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B.Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Ms.Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 36(1)(va)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘ए’, अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद । आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद

Javi Systems India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Gurgaon

Appeal of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2862/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 34Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

long periods. That Parliament intended to retain the 4 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