“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)

M/S Beltex Rubber India, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward - 1 (1), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is dismissed

ITA 8/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(1)Section 250o

specifically inserted by the Finance Act, 1987, w.e.f. 1-04-1988. 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

Incedo Technology Solutions Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle -10(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 460/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 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

Golfgreen Infra Private Limited, Delhi vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 260/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Itr U/S 139(1)And The Amendment As Made In The Section By Finance Bill 2020 Is Effective From A.Y 2020-21 .

For Appellant: Ms. Nivedita, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 43B

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 ... 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 4 ITA No.260/Del./2022 from the employees (whether the amount is received from the employee or by way of deduction

National Housing Bank, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range-6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1242/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

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

Dcm Shriram Industries Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1000/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2017-18 With Assessment Year 2016-17 With Assessment Year 2015-16

Section 133(6)Section 80I

manner under any head of income. It is not liable for tax for the assessment year under consideration in terms of sections 2(24), 28, 45 16 | P a g e ITA No.1000/Del/2022; 539/Del/2021 & 1841/Del/2020 and 56 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Carbon credits are made available ... transfer of carbon credits are in the nature of capital receipts not subjected to tax in terms of section 28(iv) read with section 2(24)(vd) of the Act. The claim of the assessee raised in grounds of appeal from 1 to 3 is hereby allowed

Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addi. CIT National E - Assesment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 539/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2017-18 With Assessment Year 2016-17 With Assessment Year 2015-16

Section 133(6)Section 80I

Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addi. CIT Special Range-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1841/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2017-18 With Assessment Year 2016-17 With Assessment Year 2015-16

Section 133(6)Section 80I

M/S Sanghvi Foods Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The DIT /CPC, Bengeluru

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 200/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Mongra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(24)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 40ASection 43B

DCIT, CPC Bangalore also made addition of the amount of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC under Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act. M/s. Sanghvi Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2017-18 - 3 – 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before

Shri Arun Kumar Shrivastava, Indore vs. Asstt, Director of Income Tax, Indore

ITA 98/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Shri Arun Kumar Adit, Cpc, Shrivastava, Bangalore 9, Shakti Nagar, Vs. Kanadia Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aopps 9595 H Assessee By Shri Soumya Bomb, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2023

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

case, the component of “employer’s contribution” is not statutorily disallowable at all because the same does not fall in the clutches of section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va); the same is governed by section 36(1)(iv) read with section 43B according to which ... 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

The ADIT CPC, Bengaluru vs. Sunderlal Moolchand Jain, Indore

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 213/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) M/S Sunderlal Moolchand Adit, Cpc, Jain Tobacconist Private Bangalore Limited, Vs. 31, Kacchi Mohalla, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaecs 7779 P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2023

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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, Sunderlal Moolchand Jain Page 6 of 7 thus, said marked difference was to be borne

M/S Vijay Pulses, Indore vs. The ACIT 4(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 205/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) M/S. Vijay Pulses, Dcit, Cpc, 12, Sajan Nagar, Bangalore Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaafv 9714 E Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2023

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(iv)Section 154Section 43B

very much correct; and (ii) On merit, the employees contributions paid belatedly after due date under PF/ESI laws attract disallowance in terms of section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va). M/s.Vijay Pulses Page 4 of 8 5. Regarding 1st component of disallowance amounting to Rs. 2 ... have taken a correct and judicious view in the situation and do not resort to making / confirming disallowance which even the provisions of section 2(24)(x) read with 36(1)(va) do not provide. More so, when the assessee has loudly explained that there was no delay

M/S Kanaka Polypack Private Limited, Aluva vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 876/COCH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year :2018-19 M/S. Kanaka Polypack Private Limited, Acit, Vs. Xvi, Keezhmad Panchayat, Corporate Circle - 1(1), Ashokapuram,Aluva, Kochi – 682 018. Ernakulam District, Kerala – 683 101. Pan :Aafck 1498 J Assessee Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Manu Kurian, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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 ... part of the employers’ Page 5 of 7 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

Kavungal Vareed Itteera, Kerala vs. ACIT, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 855/COCH/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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 ... 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 Page 4 of 6 i.e., depositing such amount received

K M Automobiles, Korba vs. Income Tax Officer -1, Korba

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 100/RPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 100/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 K M Automobiles Plot No.187, Transport Nagar, Korba, Chhatisgarh-495 677 Pan: Aanfk0386L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

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

M/S Tesla Transformers (India) Ltd, Bhopal vs. ACIT 3(1) Bhopal, Bhopal

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

ITA 190/IND/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 Mar 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Tesla Transformers Acit 3(1) (India) Ltd. Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aagct 8705 J Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.03.2023

Section 115BSection 143(1)

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 ... Rajasthan High Court). 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

Bhag Kaur and Harnam Singh Zoria, Dasuya vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemptions), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 16/ASR/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar01 Mar 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12A

assume the nature of 'Capital receipt' the moment the donations are given to the "Corpus of the Trust". We find the provisions of section 2(24)(iia)/12(1)/11(1)(d)/35/56(2) are relevant for deciding the current issue. It is a settled legal proposition, in case ... registered Trust under the Income-Tax Act, the corpus specific Voluntary Contributions are outside the scope of income as defined in section 2(24)(iia) of the Act due to their "Capital nature". But it is a case of un-registered Trust. Despite the detailed deliberations made

Hi-Tech Instruments & Systems, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 15/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.15/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2019-20) Hi-Tech Instruments & Control Vs. Income Tax Officer, Systems, Ward-4(1), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aadfh 9770 K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri D. Madhusudhana Rao, Ca ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri D. Madhusudhana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. AR

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

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w.s 36(1)(va) and section 43B of the Act being late deposit of employees contribution towards ESIC/PF amounting to Rs. 2

Ocean Exim India Private Ltd, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 37/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prabha Rana (Adv.)For Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(A)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Shri Arun Kumar Shrivastava, Indore vs. Asstt, Director of Income Tax, Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 99/IND/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) M/S. Nimar Motors P. Ltd. Dcit, Cpc, Jetapur Sanawad Road Bangalore Vs. Khargone (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaccn 9368 D Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Smt. Chhaya Balwani Dcit, Cpc, Green Height, Bangalore Vs. 27, Gulmohar Colony Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aotpb 5766 P Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Shri Rohit Panchal Dcit, Cpc, 47, Roop Ram Nagar, Bangalore Vs. Manik Bagh, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Amvpp 7291 D Assessee By Shri Hiresh Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr

Section 143(1)Section 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

Smt Cjjaya Balwani, Bhopal vs. The Cpo, Banglore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 330/IND/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2023AY 2020-21

Section 143(1)Section 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