“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)

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

In the result, all the three captioned appeals of the

ITA 2197/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

Jaya Hospitals, Warangal vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Warangal

In the result, ITA No.616/Hyd/2022 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

ITA 617/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya

Section 37Section 40

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

Jaya Hospitals, Warangal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Warangal

In the result, ITA No.616/Hyd/2022 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

ITA 616/HYD/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya

Section 37Section 40

Itek Packz, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 995/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 244ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)

amounts for long periods. That Parliament intended to retain the separate character of these two amounts, isevident 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 ... 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

The Bbr & Rdcc Employess Co-Operative Society Limited, Banghalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(4), Bangalore

ITA 989/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Girish T.L., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 143(3)Section 80(2)(a)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

excluding the levy of income tax from the income of such business to which the above principle is applicable. A perusal of the section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act 1961, shows that the Act recognizes the principle of mutuality and has excluded all businesses involving such principle from

Mass Fab Technologies, Bangalore vs. CIT(Appeals), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1079/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 244ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)

Neeta Tours and Travels, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Comm. of Income Tax, Circle 2, Mumbai

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

ITA 1872/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalneeta Tours & Travels, D-1, Hari Bhakti Compound, Retibunder, Opp. Dowellss Co., Ghodbunder Road, Kashimira, Thane-401104. Pan: Aaefn3413G ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Circle-2, Room No.27, B Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Road No. 162, Midc, Thane (West)-400604. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Hiten P. Shah, Ar Respondent By : Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short ‘Nfac’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’] Vide Order Dated 30.05.2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Hiten P. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 40Section 40ASection 41Section 43BSection 80G

relating to ESIC and PF (Employee’s Contribution). 6. We have gone through the provisions of section 2(24)(x), 36(1)(va) and section 43B of the Act. We also observed the due dates of payments under the ESIC Act and EPF and M.P. Act as produced on Page ... 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

M/S. Almech Facades Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC`, Delhi

ITA 1549/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Almech Facades Pvt. National Faceless Appeal Ltd., Centre (Nfac), 113B, Hub Town Solaris Delhi Building, Vs. N.S. Phadke Marg, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 069 Pan: Aanca3788P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, D.R

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

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

Gannon Dunkerley & Co Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2228/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd, Dy. Cit, Circle-1(1)(1), 3Rd Floor, New Excelsior Aayakar Bhavan, Building Ak Nayak Marg, Fort, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 001. Pan No. Aaacg 1846 P Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Babulal Sharma, Ar : Revenue By Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao Deshmukh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/12/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Babulal Sharma, AR

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

measure under the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section measure under the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section measure under the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 2(24)(x) makes the employees' share as a deemed 2(24)(x) makes the employees' share as a deemed 2(24)(x) makes the employees ... share as a deemed income in the hands of the employer. e in the hands of the employer. Section 2(24)(x) of Section 2(24)(x) of the Act includes within the definition of income 'any sum the Act includes within the definition of income

Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. Dy. Commissioner Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 765/CHNY/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri N Arjunraj, CA for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

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

that is also held not be an expenditure. The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered that the 36(1)(va) as well as section 2(24)(x) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- 52. When Parliament introduced Section 43B, what was on the statute book ... 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

Sahrudaya Health Care (Kurnool) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 596/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Sahrudaya Health Care Vs. The Income Tax Officer, (Kurnool), Private Limited, Ward 3 (1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aawcs3735M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Kumar Adithya. Date Of Hearing: 20.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.12.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Adithya

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

made on account of disallowance by invoking the provisions under section 36(1)(va) of the Act cannot be interfered with. 9. Under section 2(24)(x) of the Act, the ‘income’ includes any sum received by the assessee from his employees as contributions to any provident fund or superannuation ... 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

DCIT Central Circle-2(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Suchir Chemicals Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 677/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit –Central Circle – 2(2) V. M/S. Suchir Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building (Amalgamated Company – Manan Pharma Pvt Ltd. W.E.F 01.04.2013) Room No. 806, 8Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Shiv Ashish M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Andheri Prade, Mumbai - 400005 Pan: Aaccm7533K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Pooja Rander & Shri Rushabh Mehta Department By : Shri Manoj Sinha

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Rander &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha

Section 115JSection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

account and cannot be considered to be income. (b) It is further pertinent to note that the definition of income as provided under section 2(24) of the Act at the relevant time did not define as income any consideration received for issue of share in excess of its fair

M/S. Automac Diesels, Huballi vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 338/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel

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

amounts for long periods. That Parliament intended to retain the separate character of these two amounts, isevident 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 ... 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

Grip Strapping Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 249/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

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

M/S Veto Switchgears and Cables Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 2634/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalm/S Veto Switchgears Vs. Acit, 13(3)(2) & Cables Limited Room No. 229, 2 Nd Floor, 4Th Floor, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharashtra Maharishi Karve Road, 400 058 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccv4990K Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Vranda U Matkarni

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

Farida Shoes Private Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 849/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.849/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-2020 M/S. Farida Shoes Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner No. 151/4, Mount Poonamallee Road, Of Income Tax, Ramapuram, Chennai 600 089. Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai [Pan:Aaacf0496Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 10.10.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-2020. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2019-20 On 28.11.2019 Declaring Total Income Of ₹.16,50,00,300/-. The Return Filed By The Assessee Was 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)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)(x), was aware of the distinction between the two types of contributions. There was a statutory classification, under the IT Act, between

Sys Information Healthcare India Private Limited, Mysuru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1) & Tps, Mysore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1026/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 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 ... part of the employers’ Page 4 of 6 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

Dr Axion India Private Limited, Thiruvallur vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 301/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.301/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dr Axion India Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 7, Othappai Village, Uthukottai, Income Tax, Thiruvallur, Tamil Nadu 602 023. Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aaccd5071D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. Abishek Murali, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 04.04.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 On 21.11.2018 Declaring Total Income Of ₹.9,90,18,014/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete

For Appellant: Dr. Abishek Murali, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 41Section 43B

DCIT Central Circle -2(2), Maharashtra vs. M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue vide

ITA 445/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdeputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Vinati Organics Ltd Income Tax, Cc, 2(2) 1102, Parinee Crescezo, Old Cgo Building, G, Block, Plot No. 806, 8Th Floor, M.K. Road C38/39, Behind Mca, Mumbai – 400020 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacv6538K Respondent .. Appellant M/S Vinati Organics Ltd Vs. Acit, Cc-2(2) 11Th Floor, 1102, Parinee Crescezo, G, Block, Plot No. C38/39, Behind Mca, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacv6538K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishant Thakker &For Respondent: Hemant Kumar Chimanlal

Section 143(2)

DCIT, CC-2(2) Vs. M/s Vinati Organics Ltd. capital receipt, hence it cannot be treated as income either under Section 2(24) or 28 of the Act. In view of the above, we are unable to uphold the order of the lower authority. Accordingly, the orders of the lower

M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue vide

ITA 402/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Nishant Thakker &For Respondent: Hemant Kumar Chimanlal

Section 143(2)