← 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)

Parminder Kumar, Sonepat vs. ITO, Ward-3, Sonepat

In the result, the Appeal in ITA No

ITA 2981/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Department by: Sh. Rajesh Dhanesta. SrFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Dhanesta. Sr
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 43

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 ... Parliament intended to retain the separate character of these two amounts, is evident from the use of different language. Parminder Kumar Vs. ITO 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

DCIT, Circle 7(1), New Delhi vs. Eagle Hunter Solution Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 2150/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vagish Kumar (On behalf of assessee)For Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(assessee)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

erred in deleting the addition amounting to Rs. 2,46,27,875/- in violating of the provisions of section 2(24)(assessee) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) on account of delayed payment of employee contribution towards PF/ESI. Application of assessee for condonation of delay 3. The ld. Senior DR submitted that ... erred in deleting the addition amounting to Rs. 2,46,27,875/- in violating of the provisions of section 2(24)(assessee) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) on account of delayed payment of employee contribution towards PF/ESI. He submitted that after judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

Rushi Pravinchandra Raskapoor, Surat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 135/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.135/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Rushi Pravinchandra Principal Commissioner Of Raskapoor, Road No.11 Income-Tax-1, Surat, Aaykar Vs. Udhna Industries Estate, Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- Surat-394210 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abmpr 0305 E (""थ" /Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nitin Gheewala, A.R राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-D.R सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/06/2023 आदेश / Order Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Surat (In Short “Ld. Pcit”] Dated 16.01.2023, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. At The Outset, Learned Counsel For The Assessee, Begins By Pointing Out That Ld. Pcit Has Invoked His Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act On The Reason That As Per The Wage Register Of Assessee, For The Period Under Consideration, That Assessee Has Received An Amount Of Rs.2,46,500/- As Employee’S Contribution To Esic & Further An Amount Of Rs.6,144/- As Employee’S Contribution To Provident Fund In Various Months. The Table Is Given In The Order Of Ld. Pcit On Pages-1 & 2 Of His Order, Wherein Total Esic Amount Is Shown At Rs.2,46,500/- & Total Employee’S Provident Fund Amount Is Shown At Rs.6,144/- Respectively. The Ld. Pcit Noted That Employee’S Contribution Is An Income In The Hands Of The Employers As Per Section 2(24)(X) Of The Act, If It Is Not Deposited By Employers

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Gheewala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263

Rs.6,144/- respectively. The Ld. PCIT noted that Employee’s contribution is an income in the hands of the Employers as per section 2(24)(x) of the Act, if it is not deposited by employers ITA No. 135/SRT/2023 A.Y.18-19 Rushi Pravinchandra Raskapoor within the time allowed under

Laxman Nainani, Kota vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 21/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Manisha Choudhary, Addl.CIT
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)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 ... KOTA 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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 496/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

Section 115PSection 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 244ASection 36(1)(va)

Learned AR submitted that 3 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. the assessee has disallowed a sum of Rs.60,084/- under section 2(24)(x) of the Act, which is in effect the disallowance of employees contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. However, while processing the return, the same

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 495/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

Section 115PSection 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 244ASection 36(1)(va)

Learned AR submitted that 3 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. the assessee has disallowed a sum of Rs.60,084/- under section 2(24)(x) of the Act, which is in effect the disallowance of employees contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. However, while processing the return, the same

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 494/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

Section 115PSection 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 244ASection 36(1)(va)

Learned AR submitted that 3 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. the assessee has disallowed a sum of Rs.60,084/- under section 2(24)(x) of the Act, which is in effect the disallowance of employees contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. However, while processing the return, the same

Dilip Construction Company, Balod vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 78/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur01 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.78/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dilip Construction Company Main Road, New Market, Dalli Rajhara, Balod (C.G.)-491 228 Pan : Aadfd9426A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Chhabda, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

before the due date and the amount of Rs.9,770/- was required to be treated as income of the assessee in accordance with Section 2(24)(x), however, it was admittedly deposited in the ESIC account before expiry of the grace period which was not considered by the Assessing Officer

Pradman Engineering Services P Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi, Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 91/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Naina K. Kumar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 254Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

91/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) the Act keeping in view the provisions of Section 143(1)(a)(iv) read with Section 2(24)(x), Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Act. Brief facts of the case common to all appeals are that the Assessee 3. had claimed ... under Section 143(1) of the Act, the deduction claimed by the Assessee was disallowed by placing reliance on the provisions contained in Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The issue travelled to CIT(A) in appeal. However

Odex India Solutions P Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 147/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Naina K. Kumar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 254Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

91/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) the Act keeping in view the provisions of Section 143(1)(a)(iv) read with Section 2(24)(x), Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Act. Brief facts of the case common to all appeals are that the Assessee 3. had claimed ... under Section 143(1) of the Act, the deduction claimed by the Assessee was disallowed by placing reliance on the provisions contained in Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The issue travelled to CIT(A) in appeal. However

Sanjay Suganchand Lodha, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bengluru

ITA 56/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Sanjay Suganchand Asst. Director Of Income Lodha, Tax, Cpc Lodha Estate, Centralized Processing Behind Mittal Industrial Vs. Centre, Estate Building No.5, Income Tax Department, Marol Naka, Bengaluru-560 500 Mumbai – 400 059 Pan: Aaapl7043G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Hiren M. Bhatt, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

ESIC after due date prescribed under the Act which was disallowed under section 36(1)(va) of the Act read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act but certainly before the due date of filing of the return. 6. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee company challenging the impugned ... 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. 5 Shri Sanjay Suganchand Lodha 52. When Parliament introduced Section 43B, what

M/S. P.A.Zaveri, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Begaluru

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 2057/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Naina K. Kumar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 254Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

91/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) the Act keeping in view the provisions of Section 143(1)(a)(iv) read with Section 2(24)(x), Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Act. Brief facts of the case common to all appeals are that the Assessee 3. had claimed ... under Section 143(1) of the Act, the deduction claimed by the Assessee was disallowed by placing reliance on the provisions contained in Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The issue travelled to CIT(A) in appeal. However

Shri Mahabir Dyeing and Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1829/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Mahabir Dyeing & Printing V. Dcit – 4(3)(1) Mills Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 649, 6Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan 510/511, Kakad Market, 306 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai - 400002 Pan: Aaacm5098H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 41Section 43B

specifically inserted by the Finance Act, 1987, with effect from 1-4-1988. 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)(4), was aware of the distinction between the two types of contributions. There was a statutory classification, under the IT Act, between

Sona Gold Agrochem Pvt Ltd, Patna vs. Adcir, CPC

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed”

ITA 88/PAT/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Patna31 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

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, the said clause would not absolve assessee-employer from its 5 A.Y. 2019-2020 Sona Gold Agrochem Pvt. Limited liability to deposit employee

M/S. Ganna Vikas Parishad, Budhana, Uttar Pradesh vs. JCIT, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 6481/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 120(4)(b)Section 124(3)Section 124(4)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(24)Section 5

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year

Shri Shashikumar S Mishra, Bharuch vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Bharuch

ITA 99/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.97 To101/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2019-20) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Shashikumar S Mishra Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-I, Bharuch Ayakar Bhawan, A/7, Ashirwad Nagar Society, Station Road, Bharuch-392001 Bholav, Bharuch-392001 Vs. Enterprises.Nihal@Yahoo.Com Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Central Circle-2, Vadodara, Aykar Bhawan, Vadodara-39007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aoqpm 4008 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Jhaveri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 41Section 43Section 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, 19 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

Shri Shashikumar S Mishra, Bharuch vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Bharuch

ITA 98/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.97 To101/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2019-20) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Shashikumar S Mishra Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-I, Bharuch Ayakar Bhawan, A/7, Ashirwad Nagar Society, Station Road, Bharuch-392001 Bholav, Bharuch-392001 Vs. Enterprises.Nihal@Yahoo.Com Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Central Circle-2, Vadodara, Aykar Bhawan, Vadodara-39007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aoqpm 4008 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Jhaveri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 41Section 43Section 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, 19 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

Shri Shashikumar S Mishra, Bharuch vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Bharuch

ITA 97/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.97 To101/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2019-20) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Shashikumar S Mishra Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-I, Bharuch Ayakar Bhawan, A/7, Ashirwad Nagar Society, Station Road, Bharuch-392001 Bholav, Bharuch-392001 Vs. Enterprises.Nihal@Yahoo.Com Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Central Circle-2, Vadodara, Aykar Bhawan, Vadodara-39007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aoqpm 4008 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Jhaveri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 41Section 43Section 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, 19 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

Shri Shashikumar S Mishra, Bharuch vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Bharuch

ITA 101/SRT/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.97 To101/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2019-20) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Shashikumar S Mishra Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-I, Bharuch Ayakar Bhawan, A/7, Ashirwad Nagar Society, Station Road, Bharuch-392001 Bholav, Bharuch-392001 Vs. Enterprises.Nihal@Yahoo.Com Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Central Circle-2, Vadodara, Aykar Bhawan, Vadodara-39007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aoqpm 4008 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Jhaveri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 41Section 43Section 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, 19 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

Shri Shashikumar S Mishra, Bharuch vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Bharuch

ITA 100/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.97 To101/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2019-20) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Shashikumar S Mishra Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-I, Bharuch Ayakar Bhawan, A/7, Ashirwad Nagar Society, Station Road, Bharuch-392001 Bholav, Bharuch-392001 Vs. Enterprises.Nihal@Yahoo.Com Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Central Circle-2, Vadodara, Aykar Bhawan, Vadodara-39007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aoqpm 4008 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Jhaveri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 41Section 43Section 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, 19 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