“Section 2(24)”

Sodexo India Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir-13(2) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sodexo India Services Private Limited, Dy. Commissioner Of Income 1St Floor, Gemstar Commercial Complex, Tax, Cpc-13(2)(2), Ramchandra Lane Extension, Vs. Room No. 571, 5Th Floor, Kanchpada, Malad West, Aayakar Bahvan, Maharishi Mumbai-400064. Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 2547 Q Appellant Respondent

Faceless Appeal Centre], for assessment year 2019-20 raising following grounds : Sodexo India Services Pvt. Ltd. 2 I. ADDITION FOR DEEMED INCOME UNDER SECTION 2(24)(x) READ WITH SECTION 36 (1) (va) Rs. 40,23,613/-: 1.1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT (Appeals)] erred in upholding ... Rs.40,23,613/- in respect of Employees' contributions Provident Fund, ESIC and Labour Welfare Fund by invoking the provisions of Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36 (1) (va) of the Act for alleged delay in payment thereof. 1.2. The learned CIT(Appeals) and the learned Assessing Officer failed

Pravin Electricals Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 1958 & 1959/Mum/2021 (A.Ys: 2017-18 & 2018-19)

ground that payment was not made on time as per explanation below section 36(1) (va) of Income Tax Act, 1961 read with section 2(24) (X) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering Clause of Finance Bill 2021 which clarify that amendment is effective from ... under the provisions of the PF Act and the PF Scheme, that would have to be treated as income within the meaning of Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act and in which case, the assessee is liable to pay tax on the said amount treating that

Neelkanth Mansions and Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Neelkanth Mansions & The Dy. Commissioner Of Infrastructure Private Limited Income–Tax, Central Circle 5Th Floor, Fine House, Anadji 14(1)(1), Vs. 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Lane, M.G. Road, Mumbai-400 077 Marg, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn1245R Assessee By : Shri Gyaneshwar Kataram, Ca Revenue By : Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 21.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2022

been deposited by the assessee before the due date of filing of the return of income is not covered by Provisions of Section 2(24) (x) of the Act and therefore, is allowable as deduction. In view of this, we hold that disallowance of Neelkanth Mansions and Infrastructure

Mec Elec Industrial Services Private Limited, Thane vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

apply and shall be deemed to have been applied to a sum received by assessee from any of his employees covered by section 2(24)(x) of the Act because this explanations are prospective and not retrospective. The relevant Para 2 of the case reads as under: - “2. Coming

Emkay Facilities Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Astt. Director of Income Tax (CPC), Bangalore [DCIT Circle 6(1)(1), Mumbai]

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhemkay Facilities Vs. Acit (Cpc), Services Pvt Ltd Bangalore B-11, Ground Floor, [Dcit Circle – 6(1)(1) Veena Beena, Mumbai]-400020 Prabodhnkar Thakare Road, Sewree (W) – Mumbai-400015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacce0492R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Mr.B.K.Bagchi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

under the provisions of the PF Act and the PF Scheme, that would have to be treated as income within the meaning of Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act and in which case, the assessee is liable to pay tax on the said amount treating that

M/S. Kohinoor Printers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1781 & 1782/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Kohinoor Printers Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Cpc Unit No.1, Ground Floor, Banglore Vs. Prakash Power Laundry Building, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai-400028. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1634R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mahesh Rajora Revenue By: Ms. Bharti Singh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Nfac”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20. Ita. No.1781/Mum/2021 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Nfac”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2018-19. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

apply and shall be deemed to have been applied to a sum received by assessee from any of his employees covered by section 2(24)(x) of the Act because this explanations are prospective and not retrospective. The relevant Para 2 of the case reads as under: - “2. Coming

Kohinoor Printers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1781 & 1782/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Kohinoor Printers Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Cpc Unit No.1, Ground Floor, Banglore Vs. Prakash Power Laundry Building, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai-400028. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1634R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mahesh Rajora Revenue By: Ms. Bharti Singh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Nfac”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20. Ita. No.1781/Mum/2021 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Nfac”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2018-19. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

apply and shall be deemed to have been applied to a sum received by assessee from any of his employees covered by section 2(24)(x) of the Act because this explanations are prospective and not retrospective. The relevant Para 2 of the case reads as under: - “2. Coming

DCIT Cent Cir 2(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1667 To 1669/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2014-15 To 2016-17) Dy. Commissioner Of बिधम/ M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd. 11Th Income Tax Floor, 1102, Parinee Vs. Central Circle-2(2), Old Crescenzo, G Block, Plot Cgo Building, 8Th Floor, M. No.C38/39, Behind Mca, K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacv6538K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -48, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2014-15 To 2016-17. Ita. No.1667/Mum/2021 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.07.2021 Passed By The Cit(A)-48, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y. 2014- 15. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Whether The Cit (A) Was Justified Against The Ao’S Action Not Considering The Claim Of Export Incentive Of Rs. ,66,70,644/- By

Government to the assessee for exploring the new market is a 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

DCIT Cent Cir 2(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1667 To 1669/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2014-15 To 2016-17) Dy. Commissioner Of बिधम/ M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd. 11Th Income Tax Floor, 1102, Parinee Vs. Central Circle-2(2), Old Crescenzo, G Block, Plot Cgo Building, 8Th Floor, M. No.C38/39, Behind Mca, K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacv6538K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -48, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2014-15 To 2016-17. Ita. No.1667/Mum/2021 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.07.2021 Passed By The Cit(A)-48, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y. 2014- 15. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Whether The Cit (A) Was Justified Against The Ao’S Action Not Considering The Claim Of Export Incentive Of Rs. ,66,70,644/- By

Government to the assessee for exploring the new market is a 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

DCIT Cent. Cir 2(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1667 To 1669/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2014-15 To 2016-17) Dy. Commissioner Of बिधम/ M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd. 11Th Income Tax Floor, 1102, Parinee Vs. Central Circle-2(2), Old Crescenzo, G Block, Plot Cgo Building, 8Th Floor, M. No.C38/39, Behind Mca, K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacv6538K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -48, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2014-15 To 2016-17. Ita. No.1667/Mum/2021 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.07.2021 Passed By The Cit(A)-48, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y. 2014- 15. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Whether The Cit (A) Was Justified Against The Ao’S Action Not Considering The Claim Of Export Incentive Of Rs. ,66,70,644/- By

Government to the assessee for exploring the new market is a 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Qmax Synthetics Private Limited, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailacit-4(3)(1) Vs. M/S Qmax Synthetics R. No. 649, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., 5-B/174, Aayakar Bhavan, Sanjay Building, Mittal Mumbai – 400 020 Industrial Estate, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacq0206D Respondent .. Appellant

been made taxable by a legal fiction under Section 56(2) (viib) of the Act and the same is enumerated as Income in Section 2(24)(xvi) of the Act, However, what is bought into the ambit of income is the premium received from a resident in excess

M/S. Flag Security Services, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 23(1) -3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Flag Security Vs. Ito Ward-23(1)-3 Services, 101, Navjyot Mumbai Chs, Near Kadamwadi, St. Anthony Street, Vakola, Santacruz East, Mumbai – 400098 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaff7581M Appellant .. Respondent

payments have been made before due date specified u/s 139(1) and as such are fully allowable. In view of the provisions of section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) & section 436 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, being late deposit of employees contribution towards ESIC/EPF which

Tmf Holding Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -1, Mumbai

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bletmf Holdings Ltd., V. Pr.Cit – 1 {Formerly Known As Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,} 3Rd Floor, Room No. 330 10Th Floor, 106 A & B Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Maker Chamber-Iii Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aacct4644A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Nikhil Tiwari Assessee By : Department By : Shri S.N. Kabra

grant exemption for sale of undertaking to wholly owned subsidiary on slump sale basis. 38. There is no sub-clause under section 2(24) which specifically includes capital gains computed under section 50B of the Act. The same gets included in taxable income only by virtue of the same being