What is Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Amendments to the Income-tax Act that are curative, clarificatory, or beneficial in nature apply retrospectively from the date the original statutory provision was introduced, even if not explicitly stated.

How many judgments cite Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT?

398 judgments on BharatTax cite Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT (224 ITR 677), spanning 2005 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 40(a)(ia), Section 43B, Section 143(3), Section 194C, Section 195, Section 50C.

Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT (224 ITR 677)

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3882/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…at the payments in question were in fact made before the due date of filing the return of income and therefore allowable in view of the proviso to section 43B. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Allied Motors (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (224 ITR 677) and CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (319 ITR 306), wherein it has been held that if payment is made before the due date of filing return, deduction cannot be disallowed. It was thus submitted that the Ld.AO did not properly verify the factual position. The Ld.AR submitted that, the claim has been allowed by ITAT in earlier years vide order dated 03…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3680/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…at the payments in question were in fact made before the due date of filing the return of income and therefore allowable in view of the proviso to section 43B. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Allied Motors (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (224 ITR 677) and CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (319 ITR 306), wherein it has been held that if payment is made before the due date of filing return, deduction cannot be disallowed. It was thus submitted that the Ld.AO did not properly verify the factual position. The Ld.AR submitted that, the claim has been allowed by ITAT in earlier years vide order dated 03…

ASIRVAD MICRO FINANCE LIMITED,ANNA SALAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE -1(1), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1139/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1139/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. P.R. Prasanna Varma, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N., CIT

Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

…h that the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) has been enacted to deter the generation and use of unaccounted money. At this juncture we are also reminded of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 91 Taxman 205/224 ITR 677, wherein it was held that the Finance Minister's Budget speech explaining the provisions are relevant in construing the provisions. ******** 9. Further the coordinate bench in the case of Ambattur Developers Private Ltd vs ITO [2025] 180 taxmann.com 751 (Chennai - Trib.) has considered an identical issue in the light of various judicial preceden…

VIKAS BEDPRAKASH PANDEY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 41(4)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 646/MUM/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Bijayananda Prusethvikas Bedprakash Pandey, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1102 Riddhi Tower, Riddhi Garden 41(4)(4),Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai- Film City Road, Malad E Mumbai- 400051. 400097. Pan/Gir No: Anwpp9823B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Adv. Respondent By Shri Pankaj Kumar (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 O R D E R Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am:

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “J (SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Vikas Bedprakash Pandey, vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1102 Riddhi Tower, Riddhi Garden 41(4)(4),Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai- Film City Road, Malad E Mumbai- 400051. 400097. PAN/GIR No: ANWPP9823B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Adv. Respondent by Shri Pankaj Kumar (CIT-DR) Date of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 O R D E R PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order passed u…

M/s.V.R.Farms Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are dismissed

ITTA/272/2008HC Telangana28 Nov 2025

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

…y Mr Aggarwal that amendment in Explanation 1 after section 234B brought about by the Finance Act, 2006 with effect from 01.04.2007 is merely declaratory. He placed reliance on the said Circular No. 14/2006 dated 28.12.2006 and upon Allied Motors v. CIT: 224 ITR 677 (SC) and Suresh N. Gupta v. CIT: 297 ITR 322 (SC). Consequently, what was introduced by way of amendment was merely to clarify and declare in explicit terms what was always the position in law. 22. Lastly, it was submitted by Mr Aggarwal, in the context of applicability of section 154, that, in any event the issue was highly debatable.…