← 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)

Euro Hardware World, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 753/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sri.Ganapath Kawad H, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyarshini Basaganni, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)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

M/S. Security & Allied Services Inc., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 653/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Ajit V. Ghatikar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

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. Security & Allied Services Inc., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 652/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Ajit V. Ghatikar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

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

Shri. Sundar Madhukaran, Bangalore vs. Additional Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 650/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

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

Pragati Fashions P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dycti (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 569/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalepragati Fashions P Ltd., Vs. Dycti (Cpc) F.P.No. 455, Shree 1 St Floor, Prestige Sadguru Heights, Alpha, Bhavani Shankar Road, Beratenagrahara, Dadar (W) Hosur Road, Uttahalli Mumbai-400028. Hobli,Bangalore- 560100 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp1730H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Girish Dave.Sr.Counsel Respondent By : Shri. S.G. Menon.Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Shri. Girish Dave.Sr.CounselFor Respondent: Shri. S.G. Menon.Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 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 ... date of filing of return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act, the same is allowable as deduction as per the provisions of Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act 6.3 Now, the question arises, whether by the Finance Act, 2021, the provisions

Ot Privacy Software Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 755/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Mohammed Amir, C.A ( A.R.)For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

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

Ot Privacy Software Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 754/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Mohammed Amir, C.A ( A.R.)For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

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. Jesmajo Industrial Fabrications Karnataka Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 751/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore11 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R.E. Balasubramaniyan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

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

Kasthuri Medias Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Additional Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 752/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

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

C Krishniah Chetty & Sons Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 748/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

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

S & G Lifestyles, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 745/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar, V., ARFor Respondent: Shri Sri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 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

S & G Lifestyles, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 744/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar, V., ARFor Respondent: Shri Sri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 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

M/S. R.R. Forgings Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 735/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Vishal S.RaoFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 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

M/S. Cadopt Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 726/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.R.E.Balasubramaniyam, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

assessee on the following grounds (i) That with reference to employees’ contribution to PF and ESI, referred to the provisions of section 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va) of the Act and held that section 36(1)(va) specifically covers the employees’ contribution to 4 ITA No.726/Bang/2021. M/s.Cadopt Technologies

Falck India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 9(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed ex-parte

ITA 7693/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

date as prescribed under the relevant Act/ Rules. The Assessing Officer accordingly resorted to the additions under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act. 6. It is the case of the assessee before lower authorities that it has deposited the employee’s contribution ... Employee's Provident Fund (EPD) and Employee's State Insurance Scheme (ESI) as deemed income of the I.T.A. No.7693/DEL/2018 3 employer under Section 2(24)(x) of the Act. ” 8. Respectfully following the binding precedents of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim

Alert Detective Force, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 740/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh G., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

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

Yenepoya Food and Beverages India Private Limited, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(2), Mangalore

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

ITA 567/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D’souzaFor Respondent: Sri.Kiran D, 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

M/S. Enphase Solar Energy Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 723/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Enphase Solar Energy Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income 259, 2Nd Main, 6Th Cross, 2Nd Floor, Tax, Indiranagar, Stage 1, Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru – 560 038. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaece 7259 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Suresh Muthukrishnan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. Suresh Muthukrishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

under: "After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we have carefully examined the above statutory provisions of the Act including the definitions of section 2(24)(x) and section 36(1)(va) and 438(b) which read thus : 'Section 2(24) Income' includes (x) any sum received by the assessee

M/S. Loka Shikshana Trust, Hubli vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 718/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Loka Shikshana Trust, The Assistant Post Box No. 30, Director Of Income Samyukta Karnataka, Tax, Koppikar Road, Cpc, Hubli – 580 020. Bangalore Vs. Pan: Aaatl1086H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kumar, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 07-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.10.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That, The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, In So Far As Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant, Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Is Erred In Fact & In Law In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer Of Adding The Amount Of Delayed

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar, CA
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)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

Asia Seeds India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC), Bangalore

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

ITA 715/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sri.Rajkumar Ganeriwala, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)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