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)

Vigilant Security Placement & Detective Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1880/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, Sr.D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Cogwheel Facility Management Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1838/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2018-19 Cogwheel Facility Management Pvt. Vs Dcit, Ltd., J-128/1, 2Nd Floor, Cpc, Mohammadpur Village, Bangalore. Near Bhikaji Cama Place, Rk Puram, New Delhi. Pan: Aagcc1517K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : .02.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27Th August, 2020 Of The Cit(A)-2, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. That The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Order Of The Ao, Passed Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.23,55,432/- Made By Ao By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 3. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Ignoring The Well- Established Judicial Pronouncements Including That Of The Jurisdictional High Court. 4. That The Impugned Appellate Order Is Arbitrary, Illegal, Bad In Law & The Violation Of Rudimentary Principle Of Contemporary Jurisprudence. 5. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter, Vary And/Or Withdraw Any Or All The Above Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Ruchesh Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Genesis Intellectuals Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 26/KOL/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar] I.T.A. No. 26/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2019-20 Genesis Intellectuals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Adit, Cpc (Pan: Aagcg2638H) Appellant Respondent

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

Maithan Alloys Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 560/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

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

Maithan Alloys Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 559/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

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

M/S. Cadopt Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 726/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.R.E.Balasubramaniyam, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Radford Global Limited, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 709/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Radford Global Ltd., Vs Adit, Office No.704, Wellington Business Cpc, Park 1, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri Bangalore. East, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400059. Pan-Aabcm5771E Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 06.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.02.2022

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

Falck India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 9(1), Delhi

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

ITA 7693/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

Darks Security Consultant Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 12(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 14/KOL/2022[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar] I.T.A. No. 14/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Darks Security Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata (Pan: Aabcd 5445 J) Appellant Respondent

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

Shri Dutt India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. AO, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 610/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar] I.T.A. No. 610/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19 Shri Dutt India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.O., Cpc, Bengaluru (Pan: Aarcs9172 P) Appellant Respondent

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

ACIT, Circle- 20(2), New Delhi vs. Qns Facility Management Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, with the above directions, the appeal of the Revenue is

ITA 6357/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla[A.Y. 2013-14]

For Appellant: Ms. Ankita, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kipgen, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 2(24)(X)

Dozco (India) Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT(CPC), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 338/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.338/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dozco (India) Pvt. Ltd.............................................…………………….……Appellant Co. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocate Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069. [Pan:Aabcd0776E] Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore…………….…..…...............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 20, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 03, 2022 Hearing Through Video Conferencing Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.08.2021 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 & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.2,07,62,303/- Made By The A.O On Account Of Delay In Payment Of Employees’ Contribution Towards The Provident Fund. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Issue Is Covered In Favour Of The Assessee By Various Court Decisions Including The Hon’Ble Calcutta High Court & That The Amendments Made By The Finance Act, 2021 Were Not Applicable To The Relevant Year. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Further Grounds Of Appeal Or Alter The Grounds At The Time Of Hearing..”

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

M/S Baid Power Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 179/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargi.T.A. No.179/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Baid Power Services Pvt. Ltd..........................…………………….……Appellant 152, Lake Town, Block-B, Kolkata-700089. [Pan: Aaccb5805B] Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore………….…..…...............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Gautam Mondal, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 02, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 02, 2022 Hearing Through Video Conferencing Order

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

Bharnobari & Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 459/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Bharnobari & Industries Pcit-2, Kolkata Ltd. Diamond Heritage, 14Th Vs. Floor, Suite No.1401, 16, Strand Road, Kolkata- 700001. Pan: Aabcb0981B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Puja Somani, Ca Respondent By : Shri Amol Kamat, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.2022 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Pcit’) Relevant To A.Y 2015-16. 2. The Only Issue Raised In This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Revisionary Jurisdiction Exercised By Pcit U/S 263 Of The Act On The Ground That The Assessing Officer Failed To Disallow & Add Rs.72,29,000/- Towards Employee’S Contribution To Pf Which Was Paid/Deposited After The Due Date As Specified Under The Pf Act & Therefore, The Assessment Framed By The Assessing Officer Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Puja Somani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kamat, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Telecomone Teleservices India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 695/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sri.Cherian K.Baby, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Telecomone Teleservices India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 694/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sri.Cherian K.Baby, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S. Veeda Clinical Research Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

Appeal of the Assesee is dismissed

ITA 1230/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Us Stating That It Was On Account Of Default Of The Chartered Accountant Of The Assessee That The Delay Occured Since He Forgot To Hand Over The Order To The Concerned Advocate For Filing The Appeal After The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 250(6)

Jalan Carbons & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cen. Cir.-1(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 566/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg)

Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43Section 43B

Creative Info-Link (P) Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-10(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 544/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg)

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

Creative Info-Link (P) Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-10(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 543/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg)

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