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)

Northern India Trading Co, New Delhi vs. Dcitcpc, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1956/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2018-19 Northern India Trading Co., Vs. Dcit, C/O Ssar & Associates, Ca, Cpc, 4852/24, Ff Ansari Road, Bengaluru. Near Sanjivan Hospital, Daryaganj, New Delhi. Pan: Aahfn1944R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sachin Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

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

Sunil Prakash, Faridabad vs. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 727/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19 Sunil Prakash, Vs. Dcit, C/O Rra Taxindia, Cpc, D-28, South Extension Part-1, Bengaluru. New Delhi. Pan: Afvpp5777K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25Th May, 2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Diesel Generating Set & Also Is A Contractor. He Filed His Return Of Income On 30.11.2018 Declaring An Income Of Rs.6,97,72,959/-. The Cpc, Bangalore, Issued Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 15Th December, 2019 Making An Addition Of Rs.1,43,36,615/- For Late Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf & Esi. In Appeal, The Ld.Cit(A) Upheld The Action Of The Ao On The Ground That Although The Payment Has Been Made Before Due Date Of Filing Of The Return, But, Same Has Not Been Deposited Within The Due Date Prescribed Under The Respective Acts.

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta &For Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr.DR

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

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi vs. Peregrine Guarding Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 5968/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2014-15 Addl. Cit, Vs Peregrine Guarding Pvt.Ltd., Special Range-7, Rz-1B, Kapashera Crossing, New Delhi. New Delhi-110037. Pan-Aadcp2498P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. I P S Bindra, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. Ajay Mangotia, Adv. Date Of Hearing 20.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 24.11.2021

Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(X)Section 37(1)

M/S Luthra Industrial Corporation, Agra vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Circle-1(1)(1), Agra

ITA 48/AGR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenalt.A No. 48/Agr/2021 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S. Luthra Industrial Corporation Vs. | Juridictional Assessinng Officer Circle -1(1)(1), B-1, Site-B, Industrial Area Agra U.P. Sikandra, Agra U.P. 282007 Pan: Aabfl2405P (Revenue) (Assessee)

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

Super Snacks Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. CPC Itd, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 998/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2019-20] Super Snacks Pvt. Ltd. Cpc, 13, Alipur Road, Bangalore Civil Lines, Delhi-110054 Pan-Aabcs3811R Assessee Revenue

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

Waverley Paints Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1888/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2018-19 Waverley Paints Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 1635-A, Gali No.14/15, Cpc, Govindpuri, Bangalore. Kalka Ji, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacw0241J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ram Avtar Sharma, Ca & Shri Somnath Vashist, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 16 .11.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Ram Avtar Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR

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

Welgrow Hotels Concepts Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1879/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2017-18 Welgrow Hotels Concepts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Cpc, B-6, Geetanjali Enclave, Bangalore. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacw5407C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Krishnan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)

Vinay Zibbu, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle- 34(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1866/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2018-19 Vinay Zibbu, Vs. Acit, D-1/124, 2Nd Floor, Circle-34(1), Sector-16, New Delhi. Rohini, New Delhi. Pan: Aaepz5493N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Priyanshu Goyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2021 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28Th August, 2020 Of The Cit(A)-13, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, These All Relate To The Ex Parte Order Of The Cit(A) In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.14,59,784/- Made By The Ao In The Order Passed U/S 154 Of The It Act By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 2(24)(X) R.W.S. 36(1)(Va) Of The It Act On Account Of Late Deposit Of Employee/Employer Contribution Of Pf & Esi. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Doing The Business Of Security Agency. He Filed His Return Of Income On 27Th October, 2018 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.21,43,950/-. The Cpc, Bangalore In The Order Processed U/S 143(1)(A) Proposed Adjustment Of Rs.14,59,784/- On Account Of Late Deposit Of Pf/Esi. The Assessee Filed An Application Stating That The Payments Have Been Duly Deposited Before The Due Date Of Filing Of The Return Of Income. Finally, In The Intimation-Cum-Order U/S 154 Of The Act Dated 15Th June, 2019 The Cpc Bangalore Assessed The Income At Rs.37,53,733/- Against The Returned Income Of Rs.22,93,949/- By Making An Addition Of Rs.14,59,784/- On Account Of Late Deposit Of Late Deposit Of Employee/Employer Contribution Of Pf & Esi 2(24)(X) R.W.S. 36(1)(Va) Of The It Act.

For Appellant: Shri Priyanshu Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36(1)(va)

Gagan Saxena, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-22(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1865/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2018-19 Gagan Saxena, Vs. Acit, H-92/6, Shivaji Park, Circle-22(2), Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan: Axfps2632E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Priyanshu Goyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2021 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18Th August, 2020 Of The Cit(A)-8, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, These All Relate To The Order Of The Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.9,34,630/- On Account Of Late Deposit Of Pf/Esi U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W. Section 2(24)(X) Of The It Act. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Is Engaged In The Business Of Supply Of Manpower. He Filed His Return Of Income On 26Th October, 2018 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.18,25,292/-. The Cpc, Bangalore Vide Intimation U/S 143(1) Dated 17Th May, 2019 Has Processed The Said Return At An Income Of Rs.27,66,590/- By Making Total Addition/Disallowance Of Rs.9,34,630/- On Account Of Late Deposit Of Pf/Esi U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S 2(24)(X) Of The It Act.

For Appellant: Shri Priyanshu Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR

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

Arco Lab Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 455/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariandshri George George Kassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT (DR)

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

Mohammed Darus Salam, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 946/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Mohammed Darus Salam, Vs Dcit, 15/5A, Old Chandrawal, Civil Lines, Cpc, New Delhi-110054. Bengaluru. Pan-Afgpd5866E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manu K.Giri, Adv., Shri Aseem Chawla, Adv. & Ms. Sonia Dudeja, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11.11.2021

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Kaynes Interconnection Systems India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 516/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel

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

Kaynes Interconnection Systems India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 515/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel

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

Sony India Software Centre Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 398/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Nov 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: AdvocateFor Respondent: JCIT (DR)

Section 10ASection 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Star Facilities Management Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward -24(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1755/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2017-18 Star Facilities Management Limited, Vs. Ito, 115-Ansal Bhawan, Ward-24(2), 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aalcs2854C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Arta Trana Panda, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.11.2021 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 4Th August, 2020 Of The Cit(A)-8, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Only Effective Ground Raised By The Assessee In The Instant Appeal Is Regarding The Order Of The Cit(A) In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.2,62,984/- On Account Of Delayed Payment Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf & Esi. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 30Th July, 2018 Declaring Nil Income. The Return Was Processed On 15Th May, 2019 At Cpc, Bangalore At An Income Of Rs.2,62,980/- By Making An Addition Of Rs.2,62,984/- On Account Of Late Deposit Of Pf/Esi U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The It Act. Before The Cit(A), The Assessee, Relying On Various Decisions, Submitted That The Addition Is Not Justified Since The Assessee Has Deposited The Employees’ Contribution To Pf & Esi Before The Due Date Of Filing The Return Of Income. However, The Ld.Cit(A), Following The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Delhi High Court In The Case Of Cit Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd., Reported In 410 Itr 417 & Various Other Decisions, Held That The Assessee Is Not Entitled To Deduction U/S 36(1)(Va) Due To Failure On His Part In Depositing The Employees’ Contribution On Or Before The Due Date.

For Appellant: Shri Arta Trana Panda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)