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)

Sri. Ramdurg Channa Basavana Goud, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1107/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jan 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Bharath Industrial Corporation, Bangalore vs. ACIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1046/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jan 2023AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri AbhijeetFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel (DR.)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Mahaveer Bulk Carriers, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1000/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2023AY 2019-20
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel (DR.)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Globallogic Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assessing Officer, Hyderabad

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

ITA 671/HYD/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jan 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 Global Logic Technologies Vs. Assessing Officer (P) Ltd, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aadcr5222K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: C.A Tanpreet Kohli Revenue By: Shri A.R. Kumar Aditya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 05/01/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 3.10.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac, Delhi Relating To A.Y.2020-21. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Rendering It Related Services. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 15.2.2022 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.26,67,20,510/- Under The Normal Provisions Of The Act & Book Profit Under The Provisions Of Section 115Jb At Rs.58,28,72,316/-. The Cpc Bangalore In Its Intimation U/S 143(1)(A) Of The Act Apart From Other Addition/Disallowance Made Disallowance Of Rs.2,28,56,810/- On Account Of Late Deposit Of Page 1 Of 5

For Appellant: C.A Tanpreet KohliFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234ASection 36(1)(va)

Soliflex Packaging Pvt. Ltd, Tumkur vs. ACIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1056/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2023AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri K. G. Acharya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department. (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

Hotel Miramar, Daman vs. Assistnt Commissioner of Income Tax, Vapi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 129/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.129/Srt/2021 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) Hotel Miramar, Vs. The Acit, Vapi Circle, Devka Beach, Nani Daman, Vapi. Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (U.T). (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabfh5561Q Assessee By Shri Kaushani Shah Proxy Ca For Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 19/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short ‘The Nfac’], Delhi, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer, Central Processing Centre (Cpc), Bengaluru, Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Dated 15.04.2019. 2. At The Outset, Learned Counsel For The Assessee Fairly Agreed That The Issue In This Appeal Pertains To Employees’ Contribution To Provident Fund & Esic, Which Is Squarely Covered Against The Assessee By The Judgment Of Hon'Ble Supreme Court In Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., In Civil Application No.2833 Of 2016, Dated 12.10.2022. 3. On The Other Hand, The Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. Dr) For The Revenue Also Agreed That The Present Assessee’S Appeal Is Covered Against The Ita 129/Srt/2021/Ay.2017-18 Hotel Miramar

Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 41Section 43Section 43B

Gannon Dunkerley & Co Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2228/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd, Dy. Cit, Circle-1(1)(1), 3Rd Floor, New Excelsior Aayakar Bhavan, Building Ak Nayak Marg, Fort, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 001. Pan No. Aaacg 1846 P Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Babulal Sharma, Ar : Revenue By Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao Deshmukh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/12/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Babulal Sharma, AR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

Hassia Packaging Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru, Bangaluru

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 387/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Suhas Kulkarni
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Royal Furnisher, Jammu vs. Assesing Officer Ward- 2 (2), Jammu

In the result appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 54/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250oSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Shri Patel Mahendrabhai Aditbhai, -HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-7(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 49/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Dec 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Sahrudaya Health Care (Kurnool) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 596/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Sahrudaya Health Care Vs. The Income Tax Officer, (Kurnool), Private Limited, Ward 3 (1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aawcs3735M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Kumar Adithya. Date Of Hearing: 20.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.12.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Adithya
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

I-Security Services, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1003/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

M/S. Automac Diesels, Huballi vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 338/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Grip Strapping Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 249/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

M/S Veto Switchgears and Cables Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 2634/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalm/S Veto Switchgears Vs. Acit, 13(3)(2) & Cables Limited Room No. 229, 2 Nd Floor, 4Th Floor, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharashtra Maharishi Karve Road, 400 058 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccv4990K Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Vranda U Matkarni
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nagpur vs. Sms Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 24/NAG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sanket BhattadFor Respondent: Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

Prakash Road Lines Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 376/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Farida Shoes Private Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 849/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.849/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-2020 M/S. Farida Shoes Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner No. 151/4, Mount Poonamallee Road, Of Income Tax, Ramapuram, Chennai 600 089. Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai [Pan:Aaacf0496Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 10.10.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-2020. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2019-20 On 28.11.2019 Declaring Total Income Of ₹.16,50,00,300/-. The Return Filed By The Assessee Was 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 41Section 43B

Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints Private Limited, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-2, Surat

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

ITA 58/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.58/Srt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pcit-2, A-26, Central Park, Gidc, Pandesara Surat. S.O., Pandesara, Surat-394221. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamcs4421L

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

Dr Axion India Private Limited, Thiruvallur vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 301/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.301/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dr Axion India Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 7, Othappai Village, Uthukottai, Income Tax, Thiruvallur, Tamil Nadu 602 023. Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aaccd5071D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. Abishek Murali, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 04.04.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 On 21.11.2018 Declaring Total Income Of ₹.9,90,18,014/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete

For Appellant: Dr. Abishek Murali, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 41Section 43B