Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 2(24)(x) is CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. (321 ITR 508), cited in 1,629 of the 2,270 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 2(24)(x)

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.

CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd.
350 ITR 327 · 2013 · High Court
425
citing judgments

Deduction for employee contributions to EPF/ESI is allowable under section 43B if paid before the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1), irrespective of the due dates under the respective welfare fund statutes.

Commissioner of Income-Tax, Udaipur v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sandh Ltd.
35 Taxmann.com 616 · 2013 · High Court
304
citing judgments

No disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(va) or Section 43B for delayed payment of employee's contributions to ESI or PF if these amounts are deposited by the assessee on or before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1). This aligns the treatment of employee contributions with employer contributions for allowability.

M/s Mahadev Cold Storage v. Jurisdictional AO
43 Taxmann.com 33 · 2014 · High Court
262
citing judgments

Employees' contributions to welfare funds are an allowable deduction if paid before the due date for filing the income-tax return under section 139(1), even if the payment is made beyond the due date specified by the respective welfare fund Acts, as per the provisions of section 43B.

13/257 Taxman 120/406 ITR 150 (Ker.) 2. CIT v. Gujarat Road Transport Corpn
223 Taxmann 398 · 2014 · High Court
220
citing judgments
CIT v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited
366 ITR 1 · 2014 · High Court
206
citing judgments

Employees' contribution towards Provident Fund (PF) and Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) is allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B if deposited before the due date of filing the income tax return, even if deposited after the expiry of the statutory time period specified in the applicable fund's statute.

Judgments on Section 2(24)(x)

ACIT, Chennai vs. Easun Products of India (P) Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as assessee are dismissed

ITA 182/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 182/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Easun Products Of India (P) Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. 6Th Floor, Temple Tower, 672, Anna Corporate Circle 2(1), Salai, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaace7384C] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 144/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/S. Easun Products Of India (P) Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Temple Tower, 672, Anna Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(1), Vs. Salai, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035. Chennai. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri G.N. Raghavendra Rao, Jcit Assessee By : Shri M. Viswanathan, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai Dated 16.12.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. Vide Order In M.P. Nos. 170 & 177/Chny/2017

For Appellant: Shri M. Viswanathan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri G.N. Raghavendra Rao, JCIT
Section 14A