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)

Kwality Restaurant, Kanpur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

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

ITA 34/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19 Kwality Restaurant V. The Cit(A) 16/97, The Mall Delhi Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaafk8712F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 10 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 10 2022 O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.9.2021 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of 115 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay, Which Is Also Supported By An Affidavit. 3. I Have Gone Through The Application For Condonation Of Delay As Well As The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee & Heard The Contention Of The Ld. D.R. On The Issue Of Condonation Of Delay. The Ld. D.R. Has Objected To The Condonatiion Of Delay & Submitted That The Assessee Is Shifting The Blame Of Delay On Its Counsel. 4. Having Considered The Reasons Explained By The Assessee In The Application For Condonation Of Delay, I Find That The Assessee Has Explained The Cause Of Delay That Due To An Oversight Of The Counsel Of The Assessee, Necessary Steps For Filing

For Appellant: None (Adjournment application)For Respondent: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 194CSection 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 40Section 43B

M/S Gulati Extrusions Pvt. Ltd, Kanpur vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 45/LKW/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Oct 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Gulati Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit 17-A, Co-Operative Industrial Circle 2(1)(1) Estate Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaacg5008M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 10 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 10 2022 O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1.3.2021 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of Five Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Director Of The Assessee Company Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay, Stating Therein That The Papers Required For Filing The Appeal Was Sent Through Speed Post On 27.4.2021 Well Within The Limitation Period, However The Same Was Delivered By The Postal Authorities In The Office Of The Tribunal On 5.5.2021. It Was Further Stated That Since The Nominal Delay Of Five Days Was Due To Late Delivery Of The Dak By The Postal Authorities, The Delay May Be Condoned & The Appeal Be Admitted For Hearing. Having Carefully Perused The Application For Condonation Of Delay, I Find That There Was Sufficient Cause For The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal. Accordingly, The Delay Of 5 Days Is Condoned & Admit This Appeal For Hearing.

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R

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

Nirakar Sukurity & Consultancy Services Private Limited, Cuttack vs. ITO Ward-2 (3), Cuttack

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

ITA 98/CTK/2022[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack17 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Nirakar Nirakar Security Security & & Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Income Tax Officer, Ward - Consultancy Consultancy Services Services Pvt Pvt 2(3), Cuttack 2(3), Cuttack Ltd., Room No.102, Gallery Ltd., Room No.102, Gallery No.4, No.4, Barabati Barabati Stadium, Stadium, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaecn 1349 J (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Ar , Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17 /10 10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/10 10/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi , National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi , National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 30.3.2022 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1042034770(1) 22/1042034770(1) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 17. 2. Shri K.K.Bal, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Shri K.K.Bal, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Shri K.K.Bal, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr

Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

ACIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Lampex Electronics Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 96/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri P.N.Moorthy, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 115JSection 253(2)Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

Lampex Electronics Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 589/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri P.N.Moorthy, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 115JSection 253(2)Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

Rukmani Tea Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle - 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 457/KOL/2022[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Oct 2022AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2020-21 Rukmani Tea Industries Pvt. Acit/Dcit, Circle- Ltd. 4(1), Kolkata Kasba Industrial Estate, Vs. Phase Ii, P-3, East Kolkata Township, Kolkata-700107. Pan: Aabcr 5257 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Sundeep Mukherjee, Ar Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Acit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.07.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A), Delhi Has Erred In Upholding The Contention Of The Ao/Cpc That Employee’S Contribution To Provident Fund For Rs. 25,02,607/- Made After Due Date But Before The Due Date For Filing Of Income Tax Return For The Assessment Year 2020-21 That Is Prior To Ay 2021- 22 Is Not Allowable U/S 43B Though Jurisdictional High Court & Other Courts Including The Apex Court Are Of Contrary View. 2. For That The Appellant Begs Leave To Add, Alter Or Amend Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Sundeep Mukherjee, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, ACIT, SR. DR

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

Cleantech Management Services Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-6(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 357/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Oct 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.357/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Cleantech Management Services Pvt. Ltd.....................................…… ….Appellant 7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069. [Pan: Aaccc8816D] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(3), Kolkata .......….…..…...............................................….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Debajyati Bhattacharya, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 12, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 12, 2022 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 26.11.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Issued By The Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre U/S 250 Disallowing Employee Benefit Expenses Shall Be Treated Void Ab Initio. 2) For That The Order Issued U/S 250 Disallowing Expenditure Towards Employee Benefit, Be Treated As Void Ab Initio, Arbitrary & Bad In Law. 3) For That Order Passed By The Cit(A) Disallowing Rs.56,98,663 Is Disputed, Arbitrary & Bad In Law. 4) For That The Cit(A) Erred In Passing The Order Merely Considering Sec36(6R Of Part A -Oi) & Sec 37(7K Of Part-A-Oi) & Without Considering Sec -43B

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Checkmate Services P Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-I

C.A. No.-002833-002833 - 2016Supreme Court12 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Topsel Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 290/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.290/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Topsel Marketing Pvt. Ltd.............………......................................…… ….Appellant C/O M/S Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, C.R. Avenue, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata. [Pan: Aaact8593J] Vs. Acit, Circle-2, Kolkata .......….…..…...............................................….. Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Muthyala Suryababu, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 771/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy H, ITP

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Muthyala Suryababu, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 770/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy H, ITP

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - I, Kolkata vs. M/S. Mcnally Bharat Engineering Company Ltd

The appeal stands disposed of on the aforesaid ground and

ITA/58/2021HC Calcutta29 Sept 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : September 29, 2022. Appearance: Ms. Smita Das De,, Adv. …For The Appellant Mr. A.K. Dey, Adv. …For Respondent The Court :- This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Challenging The Order Dated March 1, 2017 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita No. 100/Kol?2011 & Co. 13/Kol/2011 For The Assessment Year 2006-07, I.T.A. No. 532/Kol/2012 & 217/Kol/2012 For The Assessment Year 2007-08 & I.T.A. No. 533/Kol/2012 & 218/Kol/2012 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- “(A) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Erred In Law In Deleting The Addition Made On Account Of Employees’ Contribution For Provident Fund U/S 36(1)(Va) R-W 2(24)(X) Ignoring The Fact That The Employees’ Contribution To The Pf Was Supposed To Be Deposited By The Employer Within The Due Date As Specified In The Pf Act Failing

Section 115JSection 14Section 260ASection 36(1)(va)Section 7

The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara vs. Samsherbhai Dadubhai Chauhan, Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 214/AHD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Samsherbhai Dadubhai Ward-1(2)(1), Vs Chauhan, Vadodara Flat No.1, Chauhan Compound, Dadunagar, Tarsali, Vadodara, Gujarat-390009 Pan : Aerpc 8318 L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28/09/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Cit(A)”In Short] Dated 06.07.2021 & The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Therein Read As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B