Commissioner of Income Tax vs. AIMIL Limited

ITA-1063/2006HC Delhi2009:DHC:567123 December 200920 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution is paid before the due date of filing the return, no disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. This aligns with Supreme Court judgments on similar provisions.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited employees' contribution towards provident fund and ESI after the due date. The Assessing Officer made an addition, which was initially confirmed by the CIT(A) due to lack of proof, but later deleted upon rectification. The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of employees' contribution to provident fund and ESI is permissible if paid before the due date of filing the return, as per Section 36(1)(va)?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 1,629 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

Cases cited in this judgment(9)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

ITA No. 1063 of 2006 ITA No.755 of 2008 ITA No. 204 of 2009 ITA No. 1214/2008 with ITA No. 1246/2008 ITA No. 78/2009

%

Reserved on: December 04, 2009 Pronounced on: December 23, 2009

1.

Commissioner of Income Tax

. . . Appellant

through : Ms. Prem Lata Bansal with

Mr. Paras Chaudhry, Advocates

VERSUS

AIMIL Limited

. . . Respondent

through : Dr. Rakesh Gupta with

Ms. Poonam Ahuja, Advocates

2.

Nirmala Swami

. . . Appellant

through : Mr. Satyen Sethi with

Mr. Johnson Bara, Advocates

VERSUS

Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi - VIII

. . . Respondent

through : Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate

3.

Spearhead Digital Studio P. Ltd.

. . . Appellant

through : Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate

VERSUS 2009:DHC:5671-DB

through : Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate

4.

Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-V

. . . Appellant

through : Mr. N.P. Sahni, Advocate

VERSUS

M/s. Net 4 India Ltd.

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)

All 6,054 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(va) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →