← 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)

Maheshwari Woods Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 585/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sri.H.Ganpatlal Kawad, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-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 ... 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

Kuduva Satishbabu Sheela, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 584/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-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

Gowrishankar Chemicals Private Limited, Tumkur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 570/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sandeep, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-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

Srinivas Achar Mohankumar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 568/BANG/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2021AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Mahesh Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, Joint CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 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 ... 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. Skava Electric Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 565/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Kusuma Yathish, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, Joint CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(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

Sunshine Educational & Development Society, Noida vs. Addl. CIT, Exemption, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 4727/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Delhi16 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT DR
Section 10(23)(c)Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 194Section 2(15)Section 251(2)Section 40

assessee from an activity of running school can be treated as income from property held under the trust or not, he submitted that section 2(24) defines the scope of ‘income’ which also refers to voluntary contribution received by the charitable trust or institution and Section 11(1)(d). Section

Maf Clothing Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 563/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.R.Venkata Raman, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Srinath Sadanala, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(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. Fashion Matrix Clothing, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 550/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19

For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar L
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Audit report. Hence adjustment presuming "disallowance of expenditure" is bad in law, for AY prior to AY 2021-22. Issue related to section 2(24)(x) 7. Without prejudice, The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the income referred under section 2(24)(x), ought to be considered ... adjustment under assumption that there is Income u/s 2(24)(x) as on 31/03/of previous year, on contrary there is no Income under section 2(24)(x), so as to invoke provision of section 36(1)(va), except for month of march, which is also paid within due date under

Stirred Creative Advertising Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 594/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Susan Mathew, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 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

Rakesh Singh, Noida vs. CPC Itd, Bengaluru

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1055/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Rakesh Singh Vs Cpc Utd 4P 102, Awho Gurjindra Vihar, Sec. Bengaluru Chai Pokcet 5, Greater Noida, Noida, Karnatak Uttar Pradesh Abcpb6585A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rakesh Kumar Garg, Ca & Sh. Ankit Garg, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 13.12.2021

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 36Section 43B

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD

Digicall Teleservices Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6267/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2006-07] Digicall Teleservices Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit (Formerly Page Point Services India Central Circle-25 Pvt. Ltd.) D-7, Dhawandeep New Delhi Apartment, 6, Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi Pan-Aabcp794Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 09.12.2021

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(24)Section 36Section 36(1)(Va)

case the Ld. Commission erred in law and on facts for taking the amount Rs.24,78,976/- as income of the assessee und Section 2 (24) (X) of the I.T. Act and not allowing the same as deduction under Section 36 (1) (va) of t Act. The Ld. Commissioner ... construed the provisions of Section 2(24) (X) and 36 (1) (va) of the I.T. Act in the spirit of the enactment arid by taking a narrow view of the statute has dismissed the appeal of the appellant by confirming the addition of an income of Rs.24

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Uflex Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1855/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri M. P. RastogiFor Respondent: Shri S. Najmi [CIT] – D. R
Section 115JSection 14ASection 80I

Supreme Court held that the capital receipts are not income within the definition of Section 2(24) of the Act and hence are not chargeable under the Income Tax Act. The learned counsel further stated that the provision of Section 115-JB of the Act is alternative mechanism for computation

Uflex Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1329/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri M. P. RastogiFor Respondent: Shri S. Najmi [CIT] – D. R
Section 115JSection 14ASection 80I

Supreme Court held that the capital receipts are not income within the definition of Section 2(24) of the Act and hence are not chargeable under the Income Tax Act. The learned counsel further stated that the provision of Section 115-JB of the Act is alternative mechanism for computation

Maxx Solutions, Gurgaon vs. CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1032/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2019-20 Maxx Solutions, Vs. Cpc, 958-960, Tower Bi, Bengaluru. 9Th Floor, Sapaze It Park, Sohna Road, Sector-49, Gurgaon. Pan: Aavfm7455N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd July, 2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 26Th October, 2019 Declaring Total Income At Rs.18,50,524/-. The Return Was Processed By The Cpc, Bangalore U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 06.03.2020 Wherein Disallowance Of Rs.5,78,203/- Was Made As Per Provisions Of Section 36(1)(Va) On Account Of Delayed Payment Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf & Esi. In Appeal, The Ld.Cit(A), Relying On Various Decisions, Upheld The Action Of The Ao. 3. Aggrieved With Such Order Of The Cit(A), The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal By Raising The Following Grounds:- “ The Ld. Cit(A) Was Wrong In Confirming Addition Of Rs.5,78,203/- U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The It Act, 1961 Without Any Base.”

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)

2 Development Engineers Ltd. (supra) has decided the issue in favour of the assessee holding that no disallowance u/s 36(1)(v) r.w.s. Section 2(24)(x) can be made if the employees’ contribution to PF and ESI are deposited after the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts ... filing of the return of income, therefore, respectfully following the decisions cited (supra), I hold that no disallowance u/s 36(1)(v) r.w.s. Section 2(24)(x) can be made in the instant case. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the grounds raised

Northern India Trading Co, New Delhi vs. Dcitcpc, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1956/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2018-19 Northern India Trading Co., Vs. Dcit, C/O Ssar & Associates, Ca, Cpc, 4852/24, Ff Ansari Road, Bengaluru. Near Sanjivan Hospital, Daryaganj, New Delhi. Pan: Aahfn1944R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sachin Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)

Development Engineers Ltd. (supra) has decided the issue in favour of the assessee holding that no disallowance u/s 36(1)(v) r.w.s. Section 2(24)(x) can be made if the employees’ contribution to PF and ESI are deposited after the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts, but, paid ... filing of the return of income, therefore, respectfully following the decisions cited (supra), I hold that no disallowance u/s 36(1)(v) r.w.s. Section 2(24)(x) can be made in the instant case. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the grounds raised

Econ, Ghaziabad vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, these appeals filed by the two assessees are allowed

ITA 1086/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, SR DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2(24)Section 36Section 43Section 43B

4959/DEL/2016) wherein it was held that the belated payments of ESI and PF cannot be treated as deemed income under section 2(24) . Further it was held that notes on clauses introducing Finance Bill Page 2 of 19 ITA No.-1048/Del/2021 PS PC Press Private Limited 1086/Del/2021 ECON, Ghaziabad

Sunil Prakash, Faridabad vs. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 727/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19 Sunil Prakash, Vs. Dcit, C/O Rra Taxindia, Cpc, D-28, South Extension Part-1, Bengaluru. New Delhi. Pan: Afvpp5777K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25Th May, 2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Diesel Generating Set & Also Is A Contractor. He Filed His Return Of Income On 30.11.2018 Declaring An Income Of Rs.6,97,72,959/-. The Cpc, Bangalore, Issued Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 15Th December, 2019 Making An Addition Of Rs.1,43,36,615/- For Late Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf & Esi. In Appeal, The Ld.Cit(A) Upheld The Action Of The Ao On The Ground That Although The Payment Has Been Made Before Due Date Of Filing Of The Return, But, Same Has Not Been Deposited Within The Due Date Prescribed Under The Respective Acts.

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta &For Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(v)

Development Engineers Ltd. (supra) has decided the issue in favour of the assessee holding that no disallowance u/s 36(1)(v) r.w.s. Section 2(24)(x) can be made if the employees’ contribution to PF and ESI are deposited after the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts, but, paid ... return of income, therefore, respectfully following the decisions cited (supra), we hold 3 that no disallowance u/s 36(1)(v) r.w.s. Section 2(24)(x) can be made in the instant case. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ambreen Projects & Infrastrcture (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 4037/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69B

connotation in view of the fact that '' it occurs in a legislative head conferring legislative power. 8. Since the definition of income in Section 2(24) is an inclusive one, its ambit, in our opinion, should be the same as that of the word income occurring in Entry ... further, even if a receipt does not fid! within sub-clause (ix), or for that matter, any of the sub- clauses in Section 2(24), it may yet constitute income. To say otherwise, would mean reading the several clauses in Section 2(24) as exhaustive of the meaning of * income

Super Snacks Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. CPC Itd, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 998/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2019-20] Super Snacks Pvt. Ltd. Cpc, 13, Alipur Road, Bangalore Civil Lines, Delhi-110054 Pan-Aabcs3811R Assessee Revenue

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)

Development Engineers Ltd. (supra) has decided the issue in favour of the assessee holding that no disallowance u/s 36(1)(v) r.w.s. Section 2(24)(x) can be made if the employees’ contribution to PF and ESI are deposited after the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts, but, paid ... filing of the return of income, therefore, respectfully following the decisions cited (supra), we hold that no disallowance u/s 36(1)(v) r.w.s. Section 2(24)(x) can be made in the instant case. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the grounds raised

Mohammed Darus Salam, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 946/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Mohammed Darus Salam, Vs Dcit, 15/5A, Old Chandrawal, Civil Lines, Cpc, New Delhi-110054. Bengaluru. Pan-Afgpd5866E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manu K.Giri, Adv., Shri Aseem Chawla, Adv. & Ms. Sonia Dudeja, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11.11.2021

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

wages/salaries and till the employer makes over the same to the concerned Fund. As a precautionary measure under the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 2(24)(x) makes the employees' share as a deemed income in the hands of the employer. Section 2(24(x) of the Act includes within ... deduction u/s 37 and u/s 438 if the payment is made before the date of filing of return of income. The deeming section 2(24)(x) in terms has no application and does not extend to the contribution of the employer. It is also necessary to note that Section