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)

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jamshedpur vs. Jai Praksh Singh, Jamshedpur

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 5/RAN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Apr 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Ratnesh Nandan Sahayita Nos.5 & 9/Ran/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Jai Prakash Singh, 103, Income Tax, Central Circle, Purulia Highway, Sakchi- Jamshedpur 831001, Jharkhand Pan/Gir No.Adsps 3452 P (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sharvan Kumar Jha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Deharia, ld CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

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

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1554/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Apr 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Virendra Singh Saini, Haryana vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore, Bengalore

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

ITA 1483/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Apr 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2019-20 Virendra Singh Saini Asst. Director Of Income Tax, Wr-5/2001, Windchants, Cpc, Bangalore Sector 112, Carterpuri B.O. Vs. Choma (62), Gurgaon – 122017 Haryana Pan: Adips8272P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Priyanka Jindal (Virtual) Department By : Shri Arvind Renge, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 30-03-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-04-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Ms. Priyanka Jindal (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Renge, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 28Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

M/S Varsha Construction vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 1(1)

In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-

TAXC/133/2025HC Chhattisgarh15 Apr 2026
For Appellant: Mr. Nikhilesh Begani and Mr. Apurv Goyal, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amit
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 246ASection 260ASection 36(1)(va)

Maa Harsiddhi Infra Developers Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Incime Tax

In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-

TAXC/152/2025HC Chhattisgarh15 Apr 2026
For Appellant: Mr. Vaibhav Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amit
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 246ASection 260ASection 36(1)(va)

Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Mydt, Sehore, Mp vs. Commisioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 407/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2014-15 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi / Bank Mydt, Acit-3(1), Bhopal बनाम/ Sehore, M.P. Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaalj0022F Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2026

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

Country Club Hospitality & Holidays Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1480/HYD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2011-12
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250

M/S. Kamakshi Jute Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 3151/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Accurate Buildcon, Rajkot vs. DCIT, CC-1, Rajkot

ITA 770/RJT/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Accurate Buildcon, Rajkot vs. DCIT, CC-1, Rajkot

ITA 769/RJT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Accurate Buildcon, Rajkot vs. DCIT, CC-1, Rajkot

ITA 768/RJT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Accurate Buildcon, Rajkot vs. DCIT, CC-1, Rajkot

ITA 767/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Accurate Buildcon, Rajkot vs. DCIT, CC-1, Rajkot

ITA 766/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Zaheer Ahmed Syed, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., CC-2(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 410/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80G

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

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

ITA 2619/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 43B

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

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

ITA 2618/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 43B

Kankariya Automobiles Pvt Ltd, Ahilyanagar vs. ITO Ward-1, Ahilyanagar

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

ITA 1932/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 36(1)(va)

Mhealth Ventures India P Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir-15(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6175/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2016-17 Mhealth Ventures India Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Ltd., Of Income Tax Circle 729H Raj Legacy, Lbs Marg, Vs. 15(2) (2), Andheri, Mumbai – 400083. Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Pan – Aagcm9200P Karve Road, Mumbai – 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Viraj Mehta, Ca (Virtually Appeared) Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.07.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessing Officer, Vide Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Has Made The Additions Of Rs.3,41,84,927/- & Rs.27,410/- Respectively Under Section 56(2)(Vii)(B) & Section 2(24)(X) As Deemed Income & Added The Same To The Income Of The Assessee. 2 Mhealth Ventures India Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, SR. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmebabad vs. Techno Industries, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 660/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyaltechno Industries, Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Plot No. 613, Phase Iv, Income-Tax, Gidc, Vatva, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad-382 245 Ahmedabad [Pan : Aacft 1503 D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Respondent By: Shri Abhijit, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 22.01.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)” For Short), Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short), Relating To The Assessment Year 2017- 18. 2. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “(1) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs 1,03,00,000/- Made By Ao On Account Of Unsecured Loan Received From Various Lenders U/S. 68 Of It Act, Despite The Fact That The Assessee Had Not Corroborative Evidences Identity Genuineness/Creditworthiness Of The Lenders During Assessment Establish The Proceedings. (2) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Admitting The Additional Evidences During Appellate Proceedings, Without Giving The Opportunity To The Ao As Required By Rule 46A.. (3) The Ld. Cita) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,66,037/- Made By Ao On Account Of Disallowance Of Interest On Unsecured Loans Paid To Lenders, Despite The Fact That The Assessee Had Not Dcit Vs. Techno Industries Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 2–

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

Kota Trucks P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 14(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2050/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Kota Trucks P. Ltd. Vs. Acit Bg-223, Sanjay Gandhi Circle -14(2) Transport Nagar, Gt New Delhi Karnal Road, New Delhi- 110042 Pan No.Aadck3550H Appellant Respondent Appellant Sh. Pratap Gupta, Ca (Virtual) Respondent Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr

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