Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT

224 ITR 677Supreme Court of India1997#182 most cited

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.

398

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2005 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT · retrospective application · curative amendment · clarificatory amendment · beneficial amendment · Section 43B · Section 50C · Section 194N · date of introduction · statutory interpretation

Also reported as

3 SCC 47291 Taxmann 205

Sections most often in play

Section 40(a)(ia)Section 43BSection 143(3)Section 194CSection 195Section 50CSection 147Section 250
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 43(b)section 3(b)section 36(va)section 43b(b)section 34(1)(iv)actual payment basissection 34(1)section 2(c)section 36(1)(iv)section 36(l)section 40a(2)section 2(24)(x)

Judgments citing Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT

Amit Singh, Bhiwadi (Alwar) vs. DCIT, CPC- Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 284/JPR/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri Rahish Mohammed (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 36(1)(va)

…a Swami Spearhead Digital Studio, M/s Net 4 India Ltd. Modipon Ltd. & M/s Ekta Agro Industries Ltd. 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC) November 25, 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Alom Extrusions Limited 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court [1997] 224 ITR 677 (SC) March 10, 1997 Allied Motors Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax 13. SC order [2009] 313 ITR 1 March 7, 2007 CIT vs. Vinay Cement Ltd. 14 SC order: July 4, 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. M/s Rajasthan State ;beverages Corpn. Ltd. 15. Hon’ble Supreme Court of Incie:[ 2009] 313 ITR (St.) 1: March 7, 2007 CIT v…

Amba Tech Engineering, Jaipur vs. ITO, Bhiwadi

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 243/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Rahish Mohammed (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 234BSection 36(1)(va)

…NIRMALA SWAMI, SPEARHEAD DIGITAL STUDIO, M/S. NET 4 INDIA LTD., MODIPON LTD., & M/S. EKTA AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD., 7. SUPREME COURT: [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC): November 25, 2009 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS M/S. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LIMITED 8. SUPREME COURT [1997] 224 ITR 677 (SC). - March 10, 1997 ALLIED MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 9. SC ORDER: [2009] 313 ITR (St.) 1: March 7, 2007 CIT VERSUS VINAY CEMENT LTD. 10. SC ORDER: July 4, 2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR VERSUS M/S RAJASTHAN STATE BEVERAGES CORPN. LTD 11. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA: [2009] 313 ITR (St.) 1: March 7,…

Sharda Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd., Agra vs. Jurisdictional Officer, Circle-2(1)(1), Agra

In the result all the appeals filed by the

ITA 62/AGR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Sharda Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jo Circle-2(1)(1), 17, Tundla Road, Nunhai Agrau.P. Agrau.P. Pan: Aaecs1396L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Prem Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jo Dcit/Acit, Circle-1(1) Kanwal Complex, B-32, A.G. Office Gwalior M.P. Road, Gwalior M.P. 474001 Pan: Aabcp2035Q (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Karam Udyog Vs. Jo Circle - 1(1)(1) 9, Gailana Road Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Abbfk0897L (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

…redited by the assessee to the employees account and the explanation to the said sub section provides the meaning of due date for this clause. The Finance act 2003 wef 1-4-2004 omitted second proviso and amended First proviso VIDE ALLIED MOTORS SUPREME COURT 224 ITR 677 the amended first proviso although inserted from 1-4-1988 was held applicable from 1-4-1984 retrospectively i.e from the date of insertion of 43B BECAUSE, IT WAS CURATIVE TO SUPPLY AN OMISSION TO ADDRESS AN APPARENT ANOMALY SINCE TO CONSTRUE OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE MEANT ABSURDITY THE ASSESSEE NOT BEING ABLE TO CLAIM IN ANY PREVIOUS YEAR AMOUNT PAID…

Karam Udhog, Agra vs. J.A.O., Dy. CIT.., Circle-1(1)(1), Agra

In the result all the appeals filed by the

ITA 112/AGR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Sharda Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jo Circle-2(1)(1), 17, Tundla Road, Nunhai Agrau.P. Agrau.P. Pan: Aaecs1396L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Prem Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jo Dcit/Acit, Circle-1(1) Kanwal Complex, B-32, A.G. Office Gwalior M.P. Road, Gwalior M.P. 474001 Pan: Aabcp2035Q (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Karam Udyog Vs. Jo Circle - 1(1)(1) 9, Gailana Road Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Abbfk0897L (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

…redited by the assessee to the employees account and the explanation to the said sub section provides the meaning of due date for this clause. The Finance act 2003 wef 1-4-2004 omitted second proviso and amended First proviso VIDE ALLIED MOTORS SUPREME COURT 224 ITR 677 the amended first proviso although inserted from 1-4-1988 was held applicable from 1-4-1984 retrospectively i.e from the date of insertion of 43B BECAUSE, IT WAS CURATIVE TO SUPPLY AN OMISSION TO ADDRESS AN APPARENT ANOMALY SINCE TO CONSTRUE OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE MEANT ABSURDITY THE ASSESSEE NOT BEING ABLE TO CLAIM IN ANY PREVIOUS YEAR AMOUNT PAID…

Prem Motors Private Limited, Gwalior vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, DCIT/ACIT, Circle1(1), Gwalior

In the result all the appeals filed by the

ITA 100/AGR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Sharda Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jo Circle-2(1)(1), 17, Tundla Road, Nunhai Agrau.P. Agrau.P. Pan: Aaecs1396L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Prem Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jo Dcit/Acit, Circle-1(1) Kanwal Complex, B-32, A.G. Office Gwalior M.P. Road, Gwalior M.P. 474001 Pan: Aabcp2035Q (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Karam Udyog Vs. Jo Circle - 1(1)(1) 9, Gailana Road Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Abbfk0897L (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

…redited by the assessee to the employees account and the explanation to the said sub section provides the meaning of due date for this clause. The Finance act 2003 wef 1-4-2004 omitted second proviso and amended First proviso VIDE ALLIED MOTORS SUPREME COURT 224 ITR 677 the amended first proviso although inserted from 1-4-1988 was held applicable from 1-4-1984 retrospectively i.e from the date of insertion of 43B BECAUSE, IT WAS CURATIVE TO SUPPLY AN OMISSION TO ADDRESS AN APPARENT ANOMALY SINCE TO CONSTRUE OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE MEANT ABSURDITY THE ASSESSEE NOT BEING ABLE TO CLAIM IN ANY PREVIOUS YEAR AMOUNT PAID…

Ikon Labels Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 49/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajkamal Ganeriwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT) Bangalore
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

…he deletion of the second proviso to section 43B of the Income-tax Act by the Finance Act 2003, which provision has come into force, with effect from April 1, 2004. The reliance placed upon the decision of the apex court in Allied Motors P. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677 and also on the decision in General Finance Co. v. CIT (Asst.) [2002] 257 ITR 338 (SC) in respect of applicability of section 43B(b) and also omission of clause (a) or (c) or (d ) or (e) or (B referred to above occurred in the first proviso to section 43B, supports the case of the assessees and also relevant paragraphs extracted from Allied Motor…

Radius Engineering Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 45/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh, G., CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

…he deletion of the second proviso to section 43B of the Income-tax Act by the Finance Act 2003, which provision has come into force, with effect from April 1, 2004. The reliance placed upon the decision of the apex court in Allied Motors P. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677 and also on the decision in General Finance Co. v. CIT (Asst.) [2002] 257 ITR 338 (SC) in respect of applicability of section 43B(b) and also omission of clause (a) or (c) or (d ) or (e) or (B referred to above occurred in the first proviso to section 43B, supports the case of the assessees and also relevant paragraphs extracted from Allied Motor…

Technocon Builders, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1) Represented by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajagopal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

…f the second proviso to section 43B of the Income-tax Act by the Finance Act 2003, which provision has come into force, with effect from Page 6 of 8 April 1, 2004. The reliance placed upon the decision of the apex court in Allied Motors P. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677 and also on the decision in General Finance Co. v. CIT (Asst.) [2002] 257 ITR 338 (SC) in respect of applicability of section 43B(b) and also omission of clause (a) or (c) or (d ) or (e) or (B referred to above occurred in the first proviso to section 43B, supports the case of the assessees and also relevant paragraphs extracted from Allied Motor…

Sri Marigantu Narasimha Chari, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 38/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…he deletion of the second proviso to section 43B of the Income-tax Act by the Finance Act 2003, which provision has come into force, with effect from April 1, 2004. The reliance placed upon the decision of the apex court in Allied Motors P. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677 and also on the decision in General Finance Co. v. CIT (Asst.) [2002] 257 ITR 338 (SC) in respect of applicability of section 43B(b) and also omission of clause (a) or (c) or (d ) or (e) or (B referred to above occurred in the first proviso to section 43B, supports the case of the assessees and also relevant paragraphs extracted from Allied Motor…

Puyvast Maritime India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1) Represented by Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 30/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajgopal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 30Section 32Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…he deletion of the second proviso to section 43B of the Income-tax Act by the Finance Act 2003, which provision has come into force, with effect from April 1, 2004. The reliance placed upon the decision of the apex court in Allied Motors P. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677 and also on the decision in General Finance Co. v. CIT (Asst.) [2002] 257 ITR 338 (SC) in respect of applicability of section 43B(b) and also omission of clause (a) or (c) or (d ) or (e) or (B referred to above occurred in the first proviso to section 43B, supports the case of the assessees and also relevant paragraphs extracted from Allied Motor…

M/S Udvasit Berojgar Sahakari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd., Sonbhadra vs. CIT (Exemption), Allahabad

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

ITA 27/ALLD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36(1)Section 43B

…, which is made applicable by the Parliament only with effect from 1-4-2004, would become curative in nature, hence, it would apply retrospectively with effect from 1-4-1988. Secondly, it may be noted that, in the case of Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677(SC), the scheme of section 43B of the Act came to be examined. In that case, the question which arose for determination was, whether sales tax collected by the assessee and paid after the end of the relevant previous year but within the time allowed under the relevant Sales Tax law should be disallowed under section 43B of the Act while computing…

Vaaho Agencies Private Limited, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1 ( 1 ), Amritsar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee related all grounds of ITA No

ITA 30/ASR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meenash. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Jatinder Arora (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Satbir Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 30/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Vaaho Agencies Pvt Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer Dilawari Street, Putlighar, Ward-1(1), Amritsar Amritsar, Punjab [PAN: AABCV3682R] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Jatinder Arora (CA) Respondent by: Sh. Satbir Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 23.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 02.03.2022 ORDER Per Anikesh Banerjee, JM: 1. The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessees against the order which were…

J.M.C Plywood, Goraya vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3, Phagwara

In the result, the disallowances confirmed by the NFAC/CIT(A) related to ITA No

ITA 4/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 4/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 J.M.C. Plywood Vs. Income Tax Officer, Focal Point Mansurpur Ward-3, Phagwara Goraya, Distt. Jalandhar Punjab 144409-Punjab [PAN: AAHFJ 8455B] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.) Respondent by: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR I.T.A. No. 20/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Khalsa Bakery Vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore Sadar Bazar, Kapurthala 144601 (Punjab) [PAN: AAHFK 1650K]…

M/S Diamond Red Tanneries, Kapurthala vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the disallowances confirmed by the NFAC/CIT(A) related to ITA No

ITA 21/ASR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 4/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 J.M.C. Plywood Vs. Income Tax Officer, Focal Point Mansurpur Ward-3, Phagwara Goraya, Distt. Jalandhar Punjab 144409-Punjab [PAN: AAHFJ 8455B] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.) Respondent by: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR I.T.A. No. 20/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Khalsa Bakery Vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore Sadar Bazar, Kapurthala 144601 (Punjab) [PAN: AAHFK 1650K]…

Khalsa Bakery, Kaputhala vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -4 (2), Jalandhar

In the result, the disallowances confirmed by the NFAC/CIT(A) related to ITA No

ITA 20/ASR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 4/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 J.M.C. Plywood Vs. Income Tax Officer, Focal Point Mansurpur Ward-3, Phagwara Goraya, Distt. Jalandhar Punjab 144409-Punjab [PAN: AAHFJ 8455B] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.) Respondent by: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR I.T.A. No. 20/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Khalsa Bakery Vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore Sadar Bazar, Kapurthala 144601 (Punjab) [PAN: AAHFK 1650K]…

Kasthuri Medias Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Additional Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 752/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

…he deletion of the second proviso to section 43B of the Income-tax Act by the Finance Act 2003, which provision has come into force, with effect from April 1, 2004. The reliance placed upon the decision of the apex court in Allied Motors P. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677 and also on the decision in General Finance Co. v. CIT (Asst.) [2002] 257 ITR 338 (SC) in respect of applicability of section 43B(b) and also omission of clause (a) or (c) or (d ) or (e) or (B referred to above occurred in the first proviso to section 43B, supports the case of the assessees and also relevant paragraphs extracted from Allied Motor…

C Krishniah Chetty & Sons Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 748/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

…f the second proviso to section 43B of the Income-tax Act by the Finance Act Page 6 of 8 2003, which provision has come into force, with effect from April 1, 2004. The reliance placed upon the decision of the apex court in Allied Motors P. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677 and also on the decision in General Finance Co. v. CIT (Asst.) [2002] 257 ITR 338 (SC) in respect of applicability of section 43B(b) and also omission of clause (a) or (c) or (d ) or (e) or (B referred to above occurred in the first proviso to section 43B, supports the case of the assessees and also relevant paragraphs extracted from Allied Motor…

S & G Lifestyles, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 745/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar, V., ARFor Respondent: Shri Sri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…he deletion of the second proviso to section 43B of the Income-tax Act by the Finance Act 2003, which provision has come into force, with effect from April 1, 2004. The reliance placed upon the decision of the apex court in Allied Motors P. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677 and also on the decision in General Finance Co. v. CIT (Asst.) [2002] 257 ITR 338 (SC) in respect of applicability of section 43B(b) and also omission of clause (a) or (c) or (d ) or (e) or (B referred ITA No.744 & 745/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 9 to above occurred in the first proviso to section 43B, supports the case of the assessees and also releva…

S & G Lifestyles, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 744/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar, V., ARFor Respondent: Shri Sri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…he deletion of the second proviso to section 43B of the Income-tax Act by the Finance Act 2003, which provision has come into force, with effect from April 1, 2004. The reliance placed upon the decision of the apex court in Allied Motors P. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677 and also on the decision in General Finance Co. v. CIT (Asst.) [2002] 257 ITR 338 (SC) in respect of applicability of section 43B(b) and also omission of clause (a) or (c) or (d ) or (e) or (B referred ITA No.744 & 745/Bang/2021 Page 7 of 9 to above occurred in the first proviso to section 43B, supports the case of the assessees and also releva…

Ajith Padival, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(3)(1), Represented by Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 660/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Shankar D., CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankarganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

…he deletion of the second proviso to section 43B of the Income-tax Act by the Finance Act 2003, which provision has come into force, with effect from April 1, 2004. The reliance placed upon the decision of the apex court in Allied Motors P. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677 and also on the decision in General Finance Co. v. CIT (Asst.) [2002] 257 ITR 338 (SC) in respect of applicability of section 43B(b) and also omission of clause (a) or (c) or (d ) or (e) or (B referred to above occurred in the first proviso to section 43B, supports the case of the assessees and also relevant paragraphs extracted from Allied Motor…