← 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)

Cargo Motors Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2465/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

provisions of the Act. The Assessing Officer ruled that by virtue of Section 36(1)(va) read 2 Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd. 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 (Central Circle -6(3), Mumbai vs. Karanja Terminal & Logistics Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2159/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115J

arising on transfer of capital asset by a company to its subsidiary company does not fal under definition of income .as given in section 2(24) of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Since it does not enter into computation provisions of Act, it cannot be included in book profit

DCIT (Central Circle -6(3), Mumbai vs. Karanja Terminal & Logistics Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2158/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115J

arising on transfer of capital asset by a company to its subsidiary company does not fal under definition of income .as given in section 2(24) of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Since it does not enter into computation provisions of Act, it cannot be included in book profit

Teradata India Pvt Ltd, Grugram vs. DCIT Circle-3(1), Gurugram

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

ITA 2337/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 80G

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

ACIT-Circle-3(1), Gurgaon vs. Teradata India Private Limited, Gurgaon

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

ITA 1430/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 80G

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

Teradata India P.Ltd, Gurugram vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Gurugram

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

ITA 1248/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 80G

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

Vinod Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 76(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 41/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

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

Vinod Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-70(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 40/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

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

Vinod Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 70(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 39/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

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

Namita Bajaj, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-32, Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed on merits in the manner as indicated above

ITA 2598/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita Nos.2596/Del/2022 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Lalita Bajaj Vs. Dcit Plot No.3, Shivaji Enclave, Central Circle – 32 Main Road, Near Raja New Delhi Garden, Opp. Mother Dairy, Delhi – 110 027 Pan No. Acspb 0775 F (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita Nos.2598/Del/2022 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Namita Bajaj Vs. Dcit Plot No.2, Shivaji Enclave, Central Circle – 32 Main Road, Near Raja Delhi Garden, Opp. Mother Dairy, Delhi – 110 027 Pan No. Acppj 8817 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Shri Aman Garg, C.A. Revenue By Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.10.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm :

Section 133(6)Section 68

Learned CIT(A) also quite and justified in upholding the same. Learned CIT-D.R. also drew our attention towards provision of Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s 36(1)(va) of the Act to submit that when the assessee has not successfully demonstrated investment and the genuineness of transaction

Lalita Bajaj, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-32, New Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed on merits in the manner as indicated above

ITA 2596/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita Nos.2596/Del/2022 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Lalita Bajaj Vs. Dcit Plot No.3, Shivaji Enclave, Central Circle – 32 Main Road, Near Raja New Delhi Garden, Opp. Mother Dairy, Delhi – 110 027 Pan No. Acspb 0775 F (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita Nos.2598/Del/2022 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Namita Bajaj Vs. Dcit Plot No.2, Shivaji Enclave, Central Circle – 32 Main Road, Near Raja Delhi Garden, Opp. Mother Dairy, Delhi – 110 027 Pan No. Acppj 8817 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Shri Aman Garg, C.A. Revenue By Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.10.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm :

Section 133(6)Section 68

Learned CIT(A) also quite and justified in upholding the same. Learned CIT-D.R. also drew our attention towards provision of Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s 36(1)(va) of the Act to submit that when the assessee has not successfully demonstrated investment and the genuineness of transaction

Vishwakarma Educational Trust, Trivandrum vs. DCIT, Exemption Circle, Trivandrum

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

ITA 901/COCH/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Cochin11 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasvishwakarma Dy. Cit (Exemptions) Educational Trust Aayakar Bhavan 14, Ulloor Lane Peroorkada Road, Kowdiar Vs. Dpi Junction, Jagathy Thiruvananthapuram 695003 Trivandurm 695014 [Pan:Aaatv1824D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:11.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Agitating The Dismissal Of It’S Appeal Contesting The Processing Of It’S Return Of Income Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Dated 30.10.2019 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19,By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department (Nfac, Delhi) [Cit(A)] Vide Order Dated 25.7.2022. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Charitable Trust Registered U/S. 12Aa Of The Act, Filed It’S Return Of Income For The Relevant Year On 28.8.2018 Declaring Nil Income, I.E., Claiming Exemption U/S. 11 On The Entirety Of It’S Income. The Same Was Processed U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act, Denying It The Benefit Of Section 11 Of The Act, I.E., At An Income Of Rs. 13,34,692. The Denial Of Exemption Was For The Reason Of Non-Audit Of It’S Accounts And, Consequently, Non-Filing Of The Audit Report, Required To Be Filed In The Prescribed Form (Form 10B), Along With The Return Of

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12Section 12(1)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

strictly complied with, and cannot be construed as merely procedural requirements. 4. We, accordingly, find little merit in assessee’s case. Reference to section 2(24) of the Act, defining income, as it stood on its amendment by Finance Act, 1972, is of no relevance in view of amendment/s thereto

Giri Bahadur, Navi Mumbai vs. WD 34(1) (4), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2150/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: MS Smitha V. Nair
Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

after the last date, as prescribed in the respective statutes, which resulted into making the aforesaid addition/disallowance u/s 36(1) (va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services ... 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

The DCIT, Circle-2(1), Thrissur vs. Sri.K.P. Johny, Thrissur

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate (with Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv. with him)For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 147Section 148(1)Section 69

allotment and purchase of shares is itself receipt of income to the extent of the excess value thereof over their acquisition cost, under section 2(24)(xv) of the Act. (e) There is no ‘short payment’ of sale consideration to the assessee, claimed at Rs.287.50 lakhs. The same is even ... even as there is no doubt on the accrual of income in the instant case, which, on transfer, is chargeable to tax under section 2(24)(vi) r/w s. 45 of the Act, the transfer itself is rendered redundant as income arises to the assessee on receipt of shares

Sri.K.P. Johny, Thrissur vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1), Thrissur

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 206/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate (with Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv. with him)For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 147Section 148(1)Section 69

allotment and purchase of shares is itself receipt of income to the extent of the excess value thereof over their acquisition cost, under section 2(24)(xv) of the Act. (e) There is no ‘short payment’ of sale consideration to the assessee, claimed at Rs.287.50 lakhs. The same is even ... even as there is no doubt on the accrual of income in the instant case, which, on transfer, is chargeable to tax under section 2(24)(vi) r/w s. 45 of the Act, the transfer itself is rendered redundant as income arises to the assessee on receipt of shares

Indium IV (Mauritius) Holdings Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Comm. of Income Tax (International Taxation) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2423/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleindium Iv (Mauritius) Holdings Limited V. Dcit (International Transaction)-2(2)(1) Office 201, 2Nd Floor, Sterling Tower Room No. 1722, 17Th Floor Air India Building, Nariman Point 14 Poudriere Street, Port Louis Mumbai – 400 021 Mauritius Pan: Aacci4907P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)Section 2(24)Section 45Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Gravis Hospitality Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2075/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 254(1)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

Prathamik Krushi Pattin Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Bedkihal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Nipani

ITA 24/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) Asstt Sr

Section 250Section 253(1)Section 80P(2)

mutuality in relation to such transactions fails and resultant surplus arising therefrom alone would partake the character of income in terms of section 2(24) of the Act and resultantly exigible to tax u/s 4 of the Act. Precisely the transactions where mutuality fails, the transactional surplus is brought

Shri Gopalkrishna Co-Operative Society Limited, Bhatkal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Karwar

ITA 23/PAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) Asstt Sr

Section 250Section 253(1)Section 80P(2)

mutuality in relation to such transactions fails and resultant surplus arising therefrom alone would partake the character of income in terms of section 2(24) of the Act and resultantly exigible to tax u/s 4 of the Act. Precisely the transactions where mutuality fails, the transactional surplus is brought

Shri Gopalkrishna Co-Operative Society Limited, Bhatkal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Karwar

ITA 22/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) Asstt Sr

Section 250Section 253(1)Section 80P(2)

mutuality in relation to such transactions fails and resultant surplus arising therefrom alone would partake the character of income in terms of section 2(24) of the Act and resultantly exigible to tax u/s 4 of the Act. Precisely the transactions where mutuality fails, the transactional surplus is brought