“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)

Poonam Sabharwal, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-28(5), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1183/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(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 le., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee

Poonam Sabharwal, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-28(5), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1182/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

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

Manmegh Singh Kanwar, Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO, Ward-73(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 3063/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Manmegh Singh Kanwar Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income Tax, 4R, 503, Gurjinder Vihar, Cpc Awho Township Greater Bangalore Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida U.P. Pan No.Avqps3897N Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ms. Priyanka Jindal, Advocate Revenue By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2025

Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 36(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

Cane Development Council Titawi, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are

ITA 2615/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shripawan Singhand Shribrajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2612/Del/2018 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 Cane Deveopment Council बनाम Income Tax Officer, Rohana Kalan, Ward 1(2), Vs. C/O Dinesh Mohan, Advocate, Muzaffarnagar, 2-Anand Vihar, Lane No.1, Uttar Pradesh. Circular Road, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaalc0277F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 271(1)(c)

given by State Government and the funding given by the State Government used for that very purpose and held that the provision of section 2(24) would not cover such grant in aid for treating as income. On appreciation of facts in hand, we find that mere disallowance of claim

Cane Development Council Rohana Kalan, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are

ITA 2613/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Section 271(1)(c)

Cane Development Council Rohana Kalan, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are

ITA 2612/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Section 271(1)(c)

Shri Parshvanath Digambar Jain Dharmik and Samajik Sanstha, Ram Gali, Neemuch Cant vs. Income Tax Officer, Aaykar Bhawan Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 353/IND/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 124ASection 144Section 69A

statute, The word income as is commonly understood does not include any donation specifically meant for specific purposes or with specific direction. Further section 2(24) had undergone amendment by way of insertion of clause (iia) by Finance Act, 1972 with effect from 1.4.1973. In this connection, it will ... corpus of the trust or distribution will, however, not be regarded as income.” 18. Thus the relevant clause defining income in section 2(24)(iia) as introduced with effect from 1.4.1973 was clearly not intended to cover contributions/donations received with a specific direction that they will form part

Goswami Bhagwan Lal Educational Society, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward Exemption, Faridabad

ITA 2238/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10Section 10(230)Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

heading of Chapter III was “Income which do not form of part of total income.” and the income had been defined in section 2(24) of the Act. Further, the Ld. AR argued, placing on emphasis on the above-highlighted part of the order of Ld. Addl. CIT(A), submitted

Sri Lakshmi Road Transport Company, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1209/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1209/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Sri Lakshmi Road Vs. Dy. Cit Transport Company Circle 6(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aatfs6596A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

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 stature

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirupur vs. Loocust Incorp, Tirupur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1426/CHNY/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms. Mythili, JCITFor Respondent: Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 250

held the amount received is a capital receipt. The Tribunal has also considered the amendment brought about by the Finance Act, 2015 to section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act while coming to the aforesaid conclusion. The relevant finding of the Tribunal in the case of Eastman Exports Global Clothing ... running the business but for the expanding the market area, is a capital receipt and cannot be treated as income either under section 2(24) or 28 of the Act. As discussed above, the same finding has been followed by this Tribunal in assessee’s own case

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, Kanpur vs. Commercial Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 779/LKW/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Nov 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2006-07 Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Commercial Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax-5, Kanpur 84/105, Kailash Motors Building, G.T. Road, Afim Kothi, Kanpur-208003 Pan: Aaccc4267E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit (A)- 2, Kanpur Dated 25.09.2017, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Y. 2006-07 On 23.12.2008. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 5,32,366/- U/S 14A Without Taken Into Consideration That The Expenditure Incurred In Relation To Exempt Income. 02. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 99,56,258/-Without Appreciating That The Provisions Of Sec. 50C Have Been Invoked By The Assessing Officer On The Basis Of Stamp Valuation Of The Property. The Assessee Has Not Claimed Before The Assessing Office To Make The Reference To The Valuation Officer U/S 55A Of It Act, 1961. 3 That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 3,20,90,164/- On Account Of Loss Claimed On Sale Of Shares Without Appreciating That The Transaction As Claimed Were Sham & Was Incorporated Only To Evade The Capital Gain Earned On The Sale Of Properties. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Ignoring The Facts Noted By The Assessing Officer Regarding The Transaction Of Sale Of Shares.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(X)Section 41(1)Section 50CSection 55A

depreciation on car Rs. 33,762/- v. Misc. expenses Rs. 1,75,498/- vi. Addition on account of late deposit of ESI under section 2(24)(X) r.w.s. 36(i)(va) Rs. 7,771/- vii. Addition under section 14A Rs. 5,32,366/- Thus, addition of this amount was added

Oravel Stays Limited (Formerly Known As Oravel Stays Private Limited), Gurugram vs. DCIT Central Circle 6, New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 577/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 194Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

erred on facts and in law in confirming disallowance of INR 62,04,444 made by the assessing officer under section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding the due date ... Rs.42,58,93,218/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and (ii) PF & ESI of Rs.62,04,444/- under section 2(24)(x) rws 36(1)(va) of the Act. Dissatisfied with the assessment order, the appellant assessee filed appeal Before

Oravel Stays Limited (Formerly Known As Oravel Stays Private Limited), Gurugram vs. DCIT Circle 76(1), New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 452/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 194Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

ITO-19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. The Jackson Coop Credit Society of the Employees of Western Railway Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2976/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 250Section 56Section 62Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Western Railway Limited specified activities mentioned in section 80P(2) would be eligible for deduction. The word 'income' has been defined under section 2(24)(1) of the Act to include profits and gains of business. This subsection is an inclusive provision. The Parliament has included specifically ‘business profits' into

Dudhsagar Research and Dement Association, Mehsana vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Exemption, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 203/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S N Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 250

hence did not qualify as a corpus donation under section 11(1)(d). He therefore brought the amount to tax as income under section 2(24)(iia) and completed the assessment at total income of Rs. 6,41,81,500/-. ITA Nos. 202&203/Ahd/2025 Dudhsagar Research and Dement Association

Dudhsagar Research and Dement Association, Mehsana vs. The Dy.CIT, Cicle-1, Exemption, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 202/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S N Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 250

Anupam Industries Limited, Anand vs. The ACIT, Anand Circle, Anand

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1882/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

paid on or before the due date under section 139(1) of the Act. The AO further added Rs. 48,33,282/- under section 2(24)(x) of the Act for delayed deposit of employees’ PF contribution, relying on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Gujarat State Road ... prescribed statutory time. On the addition of Rs. 48,33,282/- relating to employees’ PF contribution, the CIT(A) examined the provisions of sections 2(24)(x), 36(1)(va) and 43B and held, in light of the Supreme Court judgment in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, that employee