“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)

Shri Rohit Panchal, Indore vs. The DCIT-CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 203/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

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

Nimar Motors P Ltd, Khargone vs. DCIT/CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 118/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

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

Bikaner Engineering Works, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 372/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Mrs. Prabha Rana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mirza Azhar Beign, JCIT

Section 143(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

G.S Developers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT Range-10, Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 757/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Chandra Mohan Gargita Nos. 756 & 757/Del/2022 (Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2019-20) G. S. Developers & Vs. Acit Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Range -10 C-58, Community Centre, Delhi Sahapuri Tirath Singh Tower, New Delhi – 110058 Pan No. Aaacg 0870 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri D. K. Gupta, C.A Shri S. C. Malhotra, C.A Revenue By Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. D.R Date Of Hearing: 20.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 04.04.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2019-20. 2. At The Outset, Learned Ar Submitted That The Issue Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical Except For The Year & Amounts Involved & Therefore The Submissions Made By Him For One Year

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(v)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

G.S Developers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT Range-10, Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 756/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(v)Section 43B

Tempo Automobiles (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1836/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: None

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(7)

ruling in Alom Extrusions. As noticed previously, Alom Extrutions did not consider the fact of I.T.A. No. 1836/Del/2020 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). 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

Kapil Kumar Nehra, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 2677/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedikapil Kumar Nehra Vs. Ito 435/16, Nawal Cottage Ward – 2(2) Civil Line Near Pushpanjali Gurgaon Hospital, Gurgaon – 122 001

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

Srf Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl CIT, New Delhi

In the result, this ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 774/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Ussrf Limited Vs. Acit Unitech Crest, Greenwood Range – 9, City Block – C, Sector – 45, Ltu, New Delhi Gurgaon – 122 003 Pan No. Aaacs 0206 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Shri R. K. Kapoor C.A. Shri Ravi Kumar Revenue By Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit (Dr) Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, New Delhi [For Short, Cit(A)] Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [For Short, 'The Act'] For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under:-

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 92C

erred in holding that CERs of Rs.3,48,37,38,617/- was a Revenue receipt and is taxable under section 2(24)(v) read with section 28(iv) of the Act. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding ... environment reducing carbon, heat and gas emissions and therefore capital receipt in nature and thus not chargeable to tax in terms of Section 2(24), 28, 45 and 56 of the Act. He further submitted that the issue raised in the present ground is a fully covered issue in favour

New Vision Softeocom & Consultabcy P Ltd, Bhopal vs. The DCIT/ACIT 3(1), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 203/IND/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: The Last Date Of Filing The Income Tax Return U/S 139(1) Of The Act As Required By Section 43B(B) For Allowability Of Deduction On Actual Payment Basis.

For Appellant: Shri Aditya & Ajay Chhajad, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 234ASection 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 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, thus, said marked difference was to be borne while interpreting obligation of assessee-employer under

Kwality Motel Shiraz, Bhopal vs. Asst Director of Income Tax CPC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 187/IND/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Feb 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEBER, SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTNT MEMBER Kwality Motel Shiraz 1, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal-462021

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Fadnis, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.R

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

clause (24) of section 2 applies." (xii) Hence, there is no ambiguity in the provisions of section 36(1 )(va) and section 2(24)(x) of the Act, and the recent amendment after passing of the Finance Act 2021, has only clarified the issue that definition of due dates ... 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

Prashanti Engineering Works P Ltd, Pithampur vs. The Asst.DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 171/IND/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Feb 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Under Section 139(1).

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goyal &For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Anjani Kumar Dwivedi, Durg vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 98/RPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 98/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Anjani Kumar Dwivedi Qtr. No. Lc 6/D, Street No.18, Camp-1, Bhilai, Dist. Durg (C.G.)-490 023 Pan: Aigpd3229G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Asstt. Director Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Shri Gitesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 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, 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

Paris Elysees India Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Jaipur

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

ITA 357/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: FixedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri James Kurian (CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

processing was done on 12.11.2019 and that too for AY 2018-19. The present addition amounts to increase in income in view of Section 2(24)(x). The right to increase in income u/s 143(1)(a)(iv) has been conferred only w.e.f. 1.4.2021. Thus, invoking this clause for making

Bindal Apparels Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1727/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sujit Kr. Yadav, AccountantFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

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 2 Bindal Apparels Pvt. Ltd. constituted "income". It was held that those amounts could

Nimbus Pipes Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 384/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Badaya (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri R.S. Meel (JCIT)

Section 154Section 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 ... under the IT Act, between the two. 35. It is instructive in this context to note that the Finance Act, 1987, introduced to Section 2(24), the definition clause (x), with effect from 1 April 1988; it also brought in Section 36(1)(va). The memorandum explaining these provisions

Aircon Engineers Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-1(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1735/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Aircon Engineers Private Limited, Vs. Ito, 276, Sultan Sadan-1, Cpc, Lane No.3, Westend Marg, Bangalore. Saidulajaib, New Delhi – 110 030. Pan: Aaaca5824B

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR

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

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

Barmalt Malting (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1763/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Kr. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

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 2 Barmalt Malting (India) Pvt. Ltd that those amounts

Aakaar Creations Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1688/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Kr. Khiwani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

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 2 Aakaar Creations Pvt. Ltd, constituted "income". It was held that those amounts could

Naresh Kumar Chawla, Faridabad vs. ACIT Circle-2(1), Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is 13

ITA 1188/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Tiwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeetender Chand

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Best Location Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1456/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1456/Del/2022: Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Best Location Properties Pvt. Ltd, Vs Ito, F-40, Ndse Part-1, Ward-4(3), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccb8008L

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

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". Best Location Properties Pvt. Ltd 3. It was held that those amounts