Which cases are most cited on Section 2(24)(x)?

CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. (321 ITR 508) — 1,629 citing judgments; Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (143 Taxmann.com 178) — 1,392 citing judgments; CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (319 ITR 306) — 1,344 citing judgments; CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (366 ITR 170) — 1,158 citing judgments; 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises (298 ITR 141) — 706 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 2(24)(x)?

BharatTax indexes 2,270 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

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

Q: What is the leading case on Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act?

CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. (321 ITR 508) is the decision most relied on for Section 2(24)(x), cited in 1,629 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).

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)

TDS Management Consultants P.Ltd, Mohali vs. DCIT-Circle-6(1), Chandigarh

In the result, these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 208/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CA, &For Respondent: Sh. Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

A K Enterprises, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, accordingly, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 181/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh N. Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

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

A K Enterprises, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, accordingly, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 180/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh N. Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

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

R V Interior Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. PCIT, Delhi

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

ITA 452/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 194Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

Purpletalk India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 193/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA PVSS PrasadFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234ASection 37(1)Section 92C

Checkmate Facility and Electronis Solutions Private Limited, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 706/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Kaushani Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr. D.R

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

Checkmate Facility and Electronic Solutions Private Limited, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 473/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Kaushani Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr. D.R

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

Talentpro India Hr Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2722/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2721 & 2722/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Talentpro India Hr Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 30, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Income Tax, Chennai 600 008. Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aabcp9823A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Sanjeev Aditya, C.A. (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R. Raghunathaboth The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different But Identical Orders Of The Addl/Jcit(A), Thiruvanantpuram Both Dated 28.08.2024 For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20. 2. Since Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear The Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Aditya, C.A. (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &

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

Talent Pro India Hr Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Circle 3(1), Corporate Chennai, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2721/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Aditya, C.A. (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &

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

Uco Bank, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1800/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Mar 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri Sonu Kumar Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Chandan Das, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nagpur vs. Ms Gondwana Engineers Limited, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 387/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 154Section 36

Aditya Shankar Choudhari, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Pune

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 333/PUN/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.333/Pun/2025 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Aditya Shankar Vs Ito Ward Choudhari, 10(1), Akurdi, House No. 125/2, Hill Pune Range, Phase 4, Deolali Camp-422401 Maharashtra Pan-Afopc0286M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 35(1)(va)Section 36(1)(V)Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

M/S.Aaryavart Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1) Presently Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 219/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.219/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Aaryavart Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Dy.Cit बनाम/ Ff – 17/A, Pariseema Complex Circle-1(1)(1) V/S. C.G. Road Presently Cen. Cir.1(3) Navrangpura Ahmedabad Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aadca 4844 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aseem Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 30.03.2022, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Whereby The Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”]. Aaryavart Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit Asst. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 40Section 68