← 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)

United Security Solution Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC Ward- 27(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 535/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: N o n e
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)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 ... 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

Shrihari Diagems (V), New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Banglore

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1566/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudhryshrihari Diagems (V) Vs. Dcit A-22, Rear Portiona Green Cpc Park, New Delhi-110 016 Banglore Pan No. Adjfs 2982 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By --None-- Revenue By Shri B. M. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 30.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.02.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.07.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :-

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

B4S Solution P.Ltd, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2187/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali
Section 10(34)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)Section 3Section 36Section 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

Logix Heights Private Ltd, Dlehi vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 13

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 264/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Ruchesh Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Chand, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 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 from the employees (whether the amount is received from the employee or by way of deduction authorized by the statute

Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 13

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 263/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Chand, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 37(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 ... 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

Nexgen Infracon Private Limited, Delhi vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 261/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Ruchesh Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Chand, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 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 from the employees (whether the amount is received from the employee or by way of deduction authorized by the statute

Prisma, Moradabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Moradabad

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

ITA 1197/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

For Appellant: N o n e
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)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 ... 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

Navodia Times Private Limited, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jalandhar

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

ITA 192/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 250oSection 36

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 ... section 36 (1). All these establish that Parliament, while introducing section I.T.A. No.192/Asr/2022 9 Assessment Year: 2018-19 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

Bhargavi Hotels and Resorts Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 419/JPR/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jan 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Ld. Cit (A). However, The Ld. Cit (A) Dismissed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee & Consequently The Assessee Has Preferred The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal On The Grounds Mentioned Hereunder :-

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Prakash Meena (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

report the actual amount paid in column no. 5. Thus on the basis of non reporting, the CPC added the entire amount under section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) thereby assuming that no amount was deposited. But as per factual position the amount as mentioned

G S Build Estate P. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-6(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 377/JPR/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jan 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Return & By Not Following The Binding Decision Of Jurisdictional High Court Of Rajasthan That If The Employees Contribution Is Deposited Before Due Date, No Disallowance Could Be Made U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monish Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)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

Srf Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi

ITA 5892/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.5892/Del/2019, A.Y. 2008-09

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250

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 and 56 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Carbon credits are made available to the assessee on account of saving of energy consumption ... incentives 'Interest subsidy' and 'Power subsidy' is a 'capital receipt' and does not fall within the definition of 'Income' under Section 2(24) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and when a receipt is not on in the character of income it cannot form part of the book profit under Section

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Korba vs. M/S. Dee Vee Project Ltd., Korba

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed/partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 69/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.69/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle, Korba (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Dee Vee Project Ltd. First Floor, Vikas Complex, P.H. Road, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Aaecd4619B ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Chand Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Shiv Priya, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5595/DEL/2016[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi17 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT- DR
Section 115BSection 139Section 153ASection 2Section 2(22)(iv)Section 2(24)(iv)

substantive ground relating to the only addition made of Rs.21006124/- in all the three years on account of alleged benefit/perquisite under section 2(24)(iv) of the Act. The issue involved is similar to the facts of the case considered by me in the case of Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Shiv Priya, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5594/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi17 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT- DR
Section 115BSection 139Section 153ASection 2Section 2(22)(iv)Section 2(24)(iv)

substantive ground relating to the only addition made of Rs.21006124/- in all the three years on account of alleged benefit/perquisite under section 2(24)(iv) of the Act. The issue involved is similar to the facts of the case considered by me in the case of Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Shiv Priya, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5593/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi17 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT- DR
Section 115BSection 139Section 153ASection 2Section 2(22)(iv)Section 2(24)(iv)

substantive ground relating to the only addition made of Rs.21006124/- in all the three years on account of alleged benefit/perquisite under section 2(24)(iv) of the Act. The issue involved is similar to the facts of the case considered by me in the case of Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma

Akshay Educational & Social Welfare Charitable Trust, Bodhgaya vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Gaya

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 3/PAT/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.03/Pat/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Akshay Educational & Social Welfare Charitable Trust............……….……Appellant Amawa (Thakar), Bodhgaya-824234. [Pan:Aacta5613R] Vs. Dcit, Circle-3, Gaya….....………............…............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A.K. Rastogi, Sr. Adv. & Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 11, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.08.2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 11Section 12ASection 250

Court has held that corpus fund is in the nature of capital receipt and therefore the same cannot be brought to tax under section 2(24)(iia) of the Act even in absence of registration under the Income Tax Act. The relevant para from the said judgment is reproduced hereunder ... with regard to the fact that the assessee is not enjoying any registration with the Income Tax Department during the impugned Assessment Years. Section 2(24)(iia), Section 11(1)(d) and Section 12A of the Act, have a direct bearing on the controversy. Therefore, it is necessary to take

Shri Dharmendra Hirubhai Patel, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangluru, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 139/SRT/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.139/Srt/2021 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Dharmendra Hirubhai Patel, Vs. The Dcit, Cpc, Motawada Steet, At & Po. Hazira, Bangluru. Tal: Choryasi, Surat – 394270. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amhpp6575A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Deven Kapadia, Ar Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/01/2023 10/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 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

ACIT, Circle-49(1), Delhi vs. Aero Club, Delhi

In the result, all the three captioned appeals of the

ITA 2293/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Maninder Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

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

Krishan Pal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-34(1), Delhi

In the result, all the three captioned appeals of the

ITA 2250/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Maninder Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

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

Savleen Kaur, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-54 (4), Delhi

In the result, all the three captioned appeals of the

ITA 2249/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Maninder Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

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