“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)

Insurekot Sports P Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CPC, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1075/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Learned Cit(A). Learned Cit(A) Noted The Facts Of The Case & Assessee’S Submission As Under :- “Assessee Has Availed Of A Franchiseeship Of Team Puneri Paltan Which Is A Participating Team In The Pro Kabaddi League Organized By Mashal Sports Private Limited. During Fy 2016 17 Ay 2017 18 It Received Prize Money Of Rs 3000000 Being The Third Placed Team Of The Event. The Same Is Accounted & Shown Under The Revenue From Operations As Prize Money. The Same Is 2 Insurekot Sports Pvt. Ltd.

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(ix)Section 56(2)(ib)

treatment of Rs 30,00,000/-, as income from other sources by reading it u/s 115BB, rw section 56(2)(ib) and section 2(24)(ix) of the Act. The appellant has agitated this treatment on grounds of merit as well as for the reason that this adjustment could

M/S Bbr (India) Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 92/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR

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

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 ... necessary implication. Before proceeding further, it will be necessary to focus on the definition of the expression 'income' in the statute. Section 2 (24) defines' income' which is an inclusive definition, and includes losses i. e. negative profit. The position has been elaborately dealt with by this Court in Commissioner

M/S Google India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bangalore

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

ITA 81/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Aliasgar Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR

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

Viskan Logistics Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 639/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh D, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Viskan Logistics Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 638/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh D, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Viskan Logistics Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 637/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh D, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Karle Infrastructure Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 39/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT-DR

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

Ram Kumar Tomar, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 34(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the Assesses is allowed

ITA 1730/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shrianil Chaturvedi & Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing) Ram Kumar Tomar, Vs. Ito, C-40, Shakti Nagar Extension, Ward-34(1), New Delhi D New Delhi Pan: Aadpt6457D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ShriAmitGoel, Ld. CAFor Respondent: ShriVipulKashyap

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

treat belated payment of Employee's Provident Fund (EPD) and Employee's State Insurance Scheme (ESI) as deemed income of the employer under Section 2(24)(x) of the Act. Appeal is dismissed.” 5.9 From the aforesaid Judgments of the Hon‟ble High Courts, it is clear that

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Subhash Kabini Power Corporation Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 350/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Subhash Kabini Power Corporation Ltd., Wing South Portion, Cristu Complex, 5Th Income Tax, Circle – 6(1)(2), Floor, No.41/7, Lavelle Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru–560 001. Pan : Aaccs 0881 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ravi Tulsiyan, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : .03.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Ravi Tulsiyan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80

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 of saving of energy consumption

M/S. Zion Hospitals and Research Centre Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 448/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Zion Hospitals & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 9, “Le Villa”, Commissioner Of Kirti Layout, Income Tax, Kammanahalli Main Road, Circle – 7 [1][2], Bangalore – 560 084. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacz4369G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 17-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.08.2021 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law. Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Appeals] / National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac For Short] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Determination Of Total Loss Of Appellant In The Intimation U/S. 143[1] Of The Act, At Rs. 63,89,502/-As Against The Returned Loss Of Rs.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 36Section 43B

Jsw Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. Addlcit, Bangalore

858/M/2011

ITA 858/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Jsw Steel Limited, The Addl. Cit, Range 11, Jindal Mansion, 5A, Vs. Bangalore. Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dc. Cc.46, M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., R.No. 659, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Jindal Mansion, 5-A, Dr. G Bhavan, M.K. Road, Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle 46, Jsw Centre, Bandra Kurla Vs. 6Th Flr., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Complex, Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Danesh Bafna &For Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 37(1)

held that when a receipt is not in the JSW Steel Ltd. 8 ITA No.s 858/M/2011 & Ors. character of income as defined under section 2(24) of the I.T.Act, 1961, then it cannot form part of the book profit u/s 115JB of the I.T.Act, 1961. The Hon'ble High court ... further observed that sales tax subsidy received by the assesee is capital receipt and does not come within definition of income under section 2(24) of the I.T.Act, 1961 and when, a receipt is not a in the nature of income, it cannot form part of book profit u/s 115JB

S N Balasubramaniya, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 60/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sandeep C, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan., Addl.CIT-DR

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

Sri.S.N.Balasubramaniya. 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 as his income ... necessary implication. Before proceeding further, it will be necessary to focus on the definition of the expression 'income' in the statute. Section 2 (24) defines' income' which is an inclusive definition, and includes losses i. e. negative profit. The position has been elaborately dealt with by this Court in Commissioner

Technocon Builders, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1) Represented by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 59/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Technocon Builders, The Deputy # 337, Sf 8, Commissioner Of Karuna Complex, Income Tax, Sampige Road, Circle - 2 (2)(1), Malleshwaram, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 003. Pan: Aaift3196L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajagopal, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.11.2021 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 To The Extent Which Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Without Jurisdiction, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Rajagopal, CA

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 30Section 32Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Deepak Vasudev Rao, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 58/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri R.E. Balasubramanyam, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

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

Deepak Vasudev Rao, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 57/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri R.E. Balasubramanyam, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

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

Karle Infrastructure Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 40/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT-DR

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

Suman Creation, Mumbai vs. ITO -22 (6) (3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 & 2019-20 are allowed and addition made by CPC and confirmed by CIT (A) is directed to be deleted

ITA 1687/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Sachin RomaniFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Thakur

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

made towards employee’s contribution to Provident Fund and Other Welfare Fund by invoking the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) r. w. Section 2(24)(x) of the Act.” 2. Facts and grounds being identical we take appeal no. ITA No. 1687 / Mum / 2021 (A.Y. 2018-19) as lead