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)

Napc Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 487/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.487/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. M/S.Napc Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, No.1A, Royal Court, Corporate Circle-4(2), First Floor, Chennai. No.41, Venkatnarayana Road, T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aaccn 3625 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.H.Yeshwanth Kumar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.08.2023

For Appellant: Mr.H.Yeshwanth Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

Sri Kaushal Kumar, Raniganj vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 178/KOL/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata01 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.178/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sri Kaushal Kumar.......…….....................................................……Appellant Ray Saheb Building, Searsole Rajbari, P.O Searsole Rajbari, Burdwan-713358. [Pan: Ammpk8603M] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Kolkata.........................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ananda Shaw, Staff, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 01, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 01, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Sole Issue Involved In This Appeal As To Whether The Remittance Towards Employees’ Contribution To Esi/Pf After The Due Date Prescribed Under The Respective Esi & Pf Acts, Is Permissible For Deduction Or Not. 3. The Plea Of The Assessee Has Been That Since The Remittance In Respect Of Employees’ Contribution To Esi & Pf Fund Was Made Before The

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Rochem Separation Systems India Pvt Ltd, Bandra East Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is allowed, while the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 270/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 2(24)Section 254(1)Section 254(2)Section 36(1)(va)

M/S. Kanak Projects Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 775/KOL/2022[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 2Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Chemical Process Piping Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2045/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2045/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Chemical Process Piping बिधम/ Acit, Circle-14(1)(2) Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. Ground Floor, Cpe Plot, Road, Mumbai-400020. Bsd Marg, Govandi, Mumbai-400088. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccc6212D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar Revenue By: Shri Samual Pitta (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 26.08.2021 For Ay. 2019-20. 2. It Is Noted That This Captioned Appeal Was Allowed In The First Round By This Tribunal Vide Order Dated 31.05.2022. However, The Same Has Been Recalled In Ma No. 428/Mum/2022 In The Light Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Decision In The Case Of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cit (448 Itr 518). Therefore, This Appeal Is Adjudicated Afresh. The Main Grievance Of Assessee Is Against The Action Of Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Disallowance Of Employee’S Contribution Made Towards Pf/Esi To The Tune Of Rs.8,12,924/-. 3. Despite Notice Of Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of This Appeal After Hearing The Ld. Dr. From A Perusal Of The Records, It Is Discerned That The Cpc Bangalore Passed The Intimation Order U/S 143(1) Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Made Adjustment Of Rs. 8,12,924/- U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act For Late Deposit Of Employee’S

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar SutharFor Respondent: Shri Samual Pitta (Sr. AR)
Section 10ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

Anuj Yadav Lh Late Shri Dafedar Singh Yadav, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-49(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 362/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Chandra Mohan Garg & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediaanuj Yadav Lh Late Shri Vs. Ito Dafedar Singh Yadav Ward – 49(1) Rzf-769/1, Street No.9, New Delhi Raj Nagar, Part-Ii, Palam Colony, Delhi – 110 045 Pan No. Aarpy 6302 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Krishna Kumar, C.A. Revenue By Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 27.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2023

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

Srg Earth Resources Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. Asst.DIT, CPC, Bengalure, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 287/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 287/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Srg Earth Resources Private Limited Asst. Dit, Cpc, Bengaluru 16, Ganesh Chandra Avenue Vs Gandhi House, Dalhousie Kolkata - 700013 [Pan : Aajcs2276A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. S. Dasgupta, Fca Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 10/01/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Sole Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Relating To The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre (Cpc) U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf/Esi I.E. After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Welfare Enactments. 3. The Issue Raised By The Assessee Has Come To Rest By The Recent Verdict Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cit (2022) 143 Taxmann.Com 178 (Sc) Dated 12.10.2022 Wherein It Has Been Held That “Deduction U/S 36(1)(Va) In Respect Of Delayed Deposit

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Dasgupta, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT D/R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Delhi vs. Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2017-18 and appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 and 2018-19 are dismissed

ITA 2051/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shuklaasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Singh Kothari, CIT DR DR
Section 144Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36

Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2017-18 and appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 and 2018-19 are dismissed

ITA 1569/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shuklaasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Singh Kothari, CIT DR DR
Section 144Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36

Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, CC-2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2017-18 and appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 and 2018-19 are dismissed

ITA 1568/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shuklaasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Singh Kothari, CIT DR DR
Section 144Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36

DCIT, Cir-1(1), Kol, Kolkata vs. M/S. North Brook Jute Company Ltd, Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross- objection file by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms indicated above

ITA 501/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mita Rizvi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT Sr. D/R
Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Starline Workshop, Mumbai vs. ITO WD1(1) (1), Mumbai

ITA 1742/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return. 3. The Appellant Prays That The Adjustment Made In The Intimation Order U/S 143(1) Of The Act May Be Deleted. 4. The Appellant Craves Your Honour'S Leave To Add, Alter Or Amend Any Ground Of Appeal At The Time Of Hearing Or Before.”

For Appellant: Shri Ryan Saldanha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Cargo Motors Gujrat Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 5(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 239/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(24)(X)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Smg International, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-30(5), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1500/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)(A)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

Agarpara Jute Mills Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC-1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 47/KOL/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Agarpara Jute Mills Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC-1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 46/KOL/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Advanced Bolting Solutions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 989/MUM/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.988 & 989/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2019-20 To 2020-21)

For Appellant: Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Ratnakar Shelake
Section 143(1)Section 2Section 2(24)Section 250Section 36

Advanced Bolting Solutions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeas), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 988/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.988 & 989/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2019-20 To 2020-21)

For Appellant: Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Ratnakar Shelake
Section 143(1)Section 2Section 2(24)Section 250Section 36

Ours Youth Club, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 22/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.22/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Ours Youth Club Vs. Income Tax Officer 1-19-17, Bc Colony Agraharam Ward-1 Vizianagaram Vijayanagaram [Pan : Aaaao2600H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

West-Bengal Power Development Corporate Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-4(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 195/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 The West Bengal Power Development Dcit, Circle-4(2), Corporation Limited Kolkata Bidyut Unnayan Bhaban, Plot No. Vs. 3/C, Block La, Sector-Iii, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700098. Pan: Aabct 3027 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Anuj Musaddi, Ca & Shri Rishav Narendra, Ar Respondent By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.01.2023 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1(A). On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred In Upholding Additions/Disallowances Made By The Ld. Ao Under The Provisions Of The Act In The Order Under Section 143(3)/ 263 Of The Act. 1(B). On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred In Not Considering The Submission Dated 16 August 2018 Filed By The Appellant Before The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata & Passing The Order Stating That The Appellant Has Not Complied With The Notices Of Hearing, Thereby Tendering The Order Unjust & Illegal: 2(A). Without Prejudice To Ground No. 1(B) Above, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Grossly Erred In Upholding The Disallowance Of Depreciation Of Rs 21,30,15,951 Made By The Ld. Ao Under Section 32(1) Of The Act On Account Of Non-Production Of Documentary Evidences For Capitalization Of Capital Spares, Office Equipment Or Building Township. 2(B). On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals)/ Ld. Ao Grossly Erred In Not Considering That The Aforesaid

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Musaddi, CA & Shri Rishav Narendra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, CIT, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 32(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(7)Section 43B