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)

Harendra Nath Biswas, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 29, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 186/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jul 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri P. M .Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

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

DCIT, Circle- 20(1), New Delhi vs. Planman Hr (P) Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 5152/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Vs Planman Hr (P) Ltd., Circle-20(1), 48, Community Centre, New Delhi. Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi. Pan: Aafcp0981K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Farhat Khan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th May, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, Relating Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The First Ground Raised By The Revenue Reads As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Under The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Law In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 54,31,041/- Made By The Ao Without Appreciating The Fact That The Amount Has Been Paid By Assessee Was On Account Of Infraction The Basis Of Explanation To Section 37 Of The Act Which Says That Any Expenditure Incurred By An Assessee For Any Purpose Which Is An Offence Or Which Is Prohibited By Law Shall Not Be Deemed To Have Been Incurred For The Purpose Of Business Or Profession & No Deduction Or Allowance Shall Be Made In Respect Of Such Expenditure.”

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Farhat Khan, Sr. DR
Section 37

DCIT 15 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Pearl Freight Services P Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 7334/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 7334/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Pearl Freight Services Tax, Circle 15(2)(2), Room No. P. Ltd. 357, 3 Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, B-106, Great Eastern फनाभ/ M.K. Road, Marine Lines, Summit, Sector-15, Cbd Mumbai-400020 Belapur, Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 614 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aadcp1825G अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : None ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 14.07.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 14.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of The Revenue Is Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-24, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Cit(A)-24/Acit-15(2)(2)/It-360/2016-17 Vide Order Dated 30.08.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai (In Short Acit/ Ao) For The A.Y. 2014-15 Vide Order Dated 20.12.2016 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’). Pearl Freight Services Pvt. Ltd.; Ay. 14-15 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Revenue Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) Deleting The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Employees Contribution To Provident Fund As Per Explanation 36(1)(Va) Read With Section 2(24)(X) Of The Act. For This, The Effective Ground Raised By Revenue Is Ground No.1, Which Reads As Under:-

For Appellant: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(X)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Pragati Glass Pvt. Ltd., Bharuch vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bharuch

In the result, ground No. 4 is allowed

ITA 504/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Pragati Glass Private Limited, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kharach, Kosamba (R.S), District Vs. Cir. 1, Bharuch-394120 Station Road, Bharuch-392001. Pan No. Aabcp 7377 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Surandra Modiani, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Adecco India Pvt. Ltd

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue fails and

ITA/1053/2017HC Karnataka29 Jun 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 2(24)(x)Section 260Section 260A

Prasad Media Corporation Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 67/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jun 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Prasad Media Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Pan Aaccp1745N …..Appellant. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 14(1), Hyderabad. ..Respondent. Appellant By : None. Respondent By : Shri Rohit Majumdar (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 10.05.2021. Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2021. O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, A.M. : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 6, Hyderabad Dt.22.11.2019 Passed In Case No.10008/2019-20/Cit(A)-6 On The Following Effective Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Majumdar (D.R)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S. Krishnae Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax -6, Pune

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

ITA 427/PUN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.427/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Krishnae Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 94A, Sangita Smriti, N T Wadi, Shivajinagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaeck1307M बनाम / V/S. Pr.Cit-6, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Deepak Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.06.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Validity Of The Order Passed By The Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-6, Pune (‘The Pcit’) Dated 12.03.2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’). 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Erred In Invoking The Provisions Of Section 263 & Passing The Order U/S.263 Which Is Without Jurisdiction & Ab Initio Bad In Law. Appellant Prays To Cancel The Same. 2. Pr. Cit Erred In Setting Aside The Order U/S. 143(3) By Stating That No Verification Was Made By A.O. Regarding Payment Of Employee’S Contribution To Pf/Esic Of Rs.10,71,494/-. However, A) Order U/S. 143(3) Is Limited Scrutiny, Not On This Issue. B) Supreme Court & Bombay High Court Held Employees Payment Before Due Date Of Filing Are Allowable. Appellant Prays To Cancel The Order Passed By Pr. Cit. 3. Appellant Prays To Add, Alter, Amend & / Or Withdraw The Ground/S As The Occasion May Demand During Appellate Proceedings.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

HUF India Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 9, Pune

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 224/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 224/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Huf India Pvt. Ltd. Gat No.304, Nanekarwadi, Chakan, Tal- Khed, Pune-410 501 Pan : Aabch9173K .......अपीलाथी / Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Aaditya DastaneFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 143(3)Section 35DSection 35D(2)Section 36(1)(va)

DCIT 14 (2) (1), Mumbai vs. Positive Packaging Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result grounds raised by the revenue in this regard are dismissed

ITA 4103/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Bhaumik Goda, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, DR
Section 115Section 143Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 43B

V Green Furnitures and Fixtures, Hyderabad vs. ITO- Ward7(2), Hyderabad

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 138/HYD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 May 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

For Appellant: Sri Ravindra Chengi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri E. Sridhar, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Omkara Impex and Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1762/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh) [Through Virtual Court]

For Appellant: Shri P.B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 234ASection 271Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

DCIT Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai vs. Talentpro India Hr. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 265/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 265/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Talentpro India Hr Pvt. Ltd., New No. 64, Old No. 30, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax, Vs. Corporate Circle 3(1), Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 008. [Pan:Aabcp9823A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Sanjeev Aditya, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai Dated 25.10.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Made Towards Belated Remittance Of Employees’ Contribution Of Pf & Esi, Which Was Disallowed Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2014-15 On 26.09.2014 Admitting Total

For Appellant: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri M. Sanjeev Aditya, C.A
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

DCIT, Circle- 3(2), New Delhi vs. Azure Switchgear Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6221/DEL/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6221/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Acit, Vs Azure Switchgear Pvt. Ltd., 109, 1St Floor, Hans Bhawan, Circle-3(2), New Delhi-110002 Wing-Ii, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahca2141E

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. V. K. Kataria, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 68Section 80I

ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi vs. Satender Kumar Jain, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7358/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2021AY 2014-15
Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 37(1)

Manoj Kumar, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-62(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 978/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 143(3)

ACIT, Circle -15(1), Kolkata vs. Baljit Securities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

ITA 346/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 115JSection 14A

Lily Jewellery P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1687/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Lily Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Unit No. 503, Block No. Ii, Vs. Officer – 10(2)(2) Seepz-Sez, Seepz++, Room No. 350, 3Rd Floor, Andheri (East), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 096 Mumbai Pan No. Aaacl9600J (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Aamod Prabhudesai & : Ms. Shubhangi Prabhudesai, A.Rs Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, D.R Date Of Hearing : 09/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/02/2021

For Appellant: Shri Aamod Prabhudesai &For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, D.R
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur vs. M/S. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1287/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jan 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1287/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2016-17 D.C.I.T., Cuke M/S Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Vs. Circle-6, Limited, Jaipur. Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabcj 6373 K Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Mukesh Verma (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : P.C. Parwal (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 03/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2016-17, Wherein The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs. 6,88,83,063/- Made For Depositing The Employees’ Contribution To Pf & Esi Beyond The Prescribed Time Limited Provided In The Respective Acts. 2. Whether In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Holding That The Employees’ Contribution To Pf & Esi Are Governed By The Provisions Of Section 43B & Not By Section 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961.”

For Appellant: P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Mukesh Verma (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Navigators Logistics Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-17(2), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5973/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Navigators Logistics Ltd, Vs. Acit, D-123, 3Rd Floor, Saket, New Circle-17(2), Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaccn0168R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Aman Preet, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(X)Section 36Section 43B

Shri Kabadi Sundarsa Manjunath, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 997/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarishri Kabadi Sundarsa Manjunath, No.40, 4Th Cross, Swan House, Residency Road, Bangalore-560 025 ….Appellant Pan Adrpm2173J Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 12(3), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri S.V.Ravi Shankar, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jcit (D.R)

For Appellant: Shri S.V.Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, JCIT (D.R)
Section 10(14)Section 234B