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)

I G International Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal vide ITA No

ITA 143/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 142 To 146/Mum/2023 (A.Ys.2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2020-21) I.G. International Private Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(3) Limited, 802, 8Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Akshar Bluechip Bhavan, M.K. Road, Building, Thane Belapur Mumbai - 400020 Road, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai – 400705 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacci2508Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ashok Mehta & Dipesh Vora Respondent By : V.S. Mahajan Date Of Hearing 20.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): All These 5 Appeals Filed By The Assesse Against Two Different Combined Orders Of Ld. Cit(A) Are Based On Identical Fact & Similar Issue, Therefore, For The Sake Convenience All These Appeals Are Adjudicated Together By Taking The Ita No. 146/Mum/2023 As A Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied Mutatis Mutandis To The Other Appeals Wherever Applicable. “1. The Learned Assessing Officer, Erred In Reopening Assessment Under Section 147 Without Jurisdiction Based On Surmises & Conjectures. Learned Cit(A)-47 Erred In Confirming The Same.

For Appellant: Ashok Mehta &For Respondent: V.S. Mahajan

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234B

I G International Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal vide ITA No

ITA 142/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Ashok Mehta &For Respondent: V.S. Mahajan

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234B

New Rampgreen Technologies Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre NFAC., Delhi

In the result Ground No. 4 is also partially allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3216/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalnew Rampgreen Technologies Private Limited F-12, Shilpin Centre, Gd Ambedkar Marg, Wadala, Mumbai-400 031 Pan: Aadcv9341F ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, 7 (2) (4) Room No.807, Old Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil KishanlalSoiFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(2)Section 38Section 40A

Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1928/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2019-20

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Atc Precision Components Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1804/DEL/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaatc Precision Components Vs. Dcit Pvt. Ltd., Cpc B-1/5,Janak Puri Bangalore Delhi-110 058 Pan No. Aafca 2867 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By -None- Revenue By Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.05.2023

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Satpal Singh Sandhu, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 4/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 04/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Satpal Singh Sandhu 151/2, Ward -1, Sandhu Bhavan, Guru Govind Singh Marg, Heerapur, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Cseps7315E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)

Dhruv Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Kota vs. CIT(A), Udaipur-2, Udaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 86/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Ao Who Ignored The Same.

For Appellant: Shri B.A. Maheshwari, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl.CIT

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S Mantra Exports Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-CPC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 510/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2023AY 2018-2019

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(v)Section 438Section 43B

M/S. Centrum Microcredit Limited, Mumbai vs. ADIT Centralized Processsing Center, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1602/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Centrum Microcredit Ltd., Asstt. Director Of Income Tax, 801, Centrum House, Cpc, Bengaluru-560500. Vs. Vidyanangari, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400098. Pan No. Aafcn 3506 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ravikant S. Pathak Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Dr : Date Of Hearing 28/04/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Ravikant S. PathakFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR

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

Harshal Subhash Nahar, Aurangabad vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 298/PUN/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

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

B and M Chemicals Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.D.I.T., C.P.C., Bengaluru, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 162/KOL/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 May 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

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

M/S Ready Roti India Pvt. Ltd., F-28, Riico Industrial Area, Sare Khurd, Alwar vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 94/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. RuniPal, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S. Mtr Maiya'S, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 95/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Suresh Rao, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

Dynasty Modular Furnitures Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 99/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

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

Icomm Tele Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA No.130/Hyd/2023 for the A

ITA 60/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Icomm Tele Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA No.130/Hyd/2023 for the A

ITA 130/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S Jasani India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 546/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailm/S Jasani India Private Vs. National E-Assessment Limited, Hw 6010, Tower Centre-Delhi, H,6Th Floor, Bharat Delhi Diamond Bourse, Bkc, Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0081C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sanket Shah Respondent By : Vranda U Matkari Date Of Hearing 27.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi Dated 10.02.2023 For A.Y. 2020-21. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. In Not Holding That The Entire Processing Was Done Without Following The Method Prescribed U/S 143(1) & That The Adjustments Made Were Beyond The Scope Of That Section. 2. In Asking The Ao To Verify Whether Or Not Rs.9,008 Of Penalty Was Compensatory In Nature - Whereas It Was Already Pleaded That This Had Been Offered To Tax. 3. In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.516,812 Being Contribution To Pf By Merely Stating That The Judgment Of The Supreme Court In Checkmate Securities P Ltd Applied To The Case-Without Appreciating The Submissions That There Was No Delay In The Making Of These Contributions.”

For Appellant: Sanket ShahFor Respondent: Vranda U Matkari

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