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)

Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints Private Limited, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-2, Surat

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

ITA 58/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.58/Srt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pcit-2, A-26, Central Park, Gidc, Pandesara Surat. S.O., Pandesara, Surat-394221. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamcs4421L

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

…oyee(s) on the other. This is one more reason why we hold that the Finance Act, 2003 is retrospective in operation. Moreover, the judgment in Allied Motors (P) ITA 58/SRT/2022/AY.2017-18 Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints Pvt. Ltd. Ltd. [(1997) 3 SCC 472 : (1997) 224 ITR 677] was delivered by a Bench of three learned Judges, which is binding on us. Accordingly, we hold that the Finance Act, 2003 will operate retrospectively with effect from 1-4-1988 (when the first proviso stood inserted). 23. Lastly, we may point out the hardship and the invidious discrimination which would be caused to the assessee(s) if the conten…

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs. The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/82/2018HC Himachal Pradesh07 Dec 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL KUKREJA

Section 145Section 36Section 43D

…e same was done with an intention to cure the defect. 14. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. versus Commissioner of Income-Tax, (1997) 224 ITR 677, wherein it has been held as under:- Section 43B was inserted in the Income-tax Act, 1961 with effect from April 1, 1984. The section, as it originally stood, did not contain the two provisos. The first proviso has been set out above. The proviso was inserted by the Finance Act of 1987 which came into effect from April 1, 1988. Explanati…

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs. The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/83/2018HC Himachal Pradesh07 Dec 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL KUKREJA

Section 145Section 36Section 43D

…e same was done with an intention to cure the defect. 14. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. versus Commissioner of Income-Tax, (1997) 224 ITR 677, wherein it has been held as under:- Section 43B was inserted in the Income-tax Act, 1961 with effect from April 1, 1984. The section, as it originally stood, did not contain the two provisos. The first proviso has been set out above. The proviso was inserted by the Finance Act of 1987 which came into effect from April 1, 1988. Explanati…

Vinod Kumar Tandon, Allahabad vs. DCIT(CPC), Begaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 29/ALLD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad22 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234BSection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…is made applicable by Parliament only with effect from 1-4-2004, would become curative in nature, hence, it would apply retrospectively with effect from 1-4-1988. 19. Secondly, it may be noted that, in Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT [(1997) 3 SCC 472 : (1997) 224 ITR 677] , the scheme of Section 43-B 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 43-B of the Act while computing…

Mayur Uniquoters Limited, Jaipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax NFAC, New Delhi

Appeals of the assesse are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 2/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar, C.AFor Respondent: MonishaChoudhary, JCIT

Section 14ASection 234CSection 80Section 80J

…advance legislative intention of providing incentive to new worker for more than 300 days and must be given retrospective effect. For this proposition, we draw support from the judgment of the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the case of Allied Motors Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT 224 ITR 677 [SC]. The relevant finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as under: “In the case of Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Anr. (188 ITR 402) this court said that the rule of reasonable construction must be applied while construing a statute. Literal construction should be avoided if it defeats the manifest object and purpose of the Act.…

Batliboi Renewable Energy Soluations Private Limited, Chennai vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 813/CHNY/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.789/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S.Electrical India Adit, Cpc बनाम/ New No.205, Old No.92/2, Lake View Road, Bengaluru. Vs. West Mambalam, Chennai-600 033. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe-2087-M (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri I.Dinesh, Advocate $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.813/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S. Batliboi Renewable Energy Adit, Cpc बनाम/ Solutions Private Ltd. Bengaluru. No.28, Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Vs. Ekkaduthangal, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacb-6055-H (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Kumar (Advocate) – Ld. Ar $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Dr & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.788/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Mr. Abdul Hassan Risvi Adit, Cpc 27, 3Rd Floor, Chindhamani Building, बनाम/ Bengaluru. Meeran Sahib Street, Mount Road, Vs. Chennai-600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Audpr-2171-E (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I.Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43Section 43B

…is made applicable by Parliament only with effect from 1-4-2004, would become curative in nature, hence, it would apply retrospectively with effect from 1-4- 1988. 19. Secondly, it may be noted that, in Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT [(1997) 3 SCC 472 : (1997) 224 ITR 677] , the scheme of Section 43-B 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 43-B of the Act while computing…

Electrical India, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 789/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.789/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S.Electrical India Adit, Cpc बनाम/ New No.205, Old No.92/2, Lake View Road, Bengaluru. Vs. West Mambalam, Chennai-600 033. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe-2087-M (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri I.Dinesh, Advocate $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.813/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S. Batliboi Renewable Energy Adit, Cpc बनाम/ Solutions Private Ltd. Bengaluru. No.28, Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Vs. Ekkaduthangal, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacb-6055-H (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Kumar (Advocate) – Ld. Ar $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Dr & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.788/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Mr. Abdul Hassan Risvi Adit, Cpc 27, 3Rd Floor, Chindhamani Building, बनाम/ Bengaluru. Meeran Sahib Street, Mount Road, Vs. Chennai-600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Audpr-2171-E (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I.Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43Section 43B

…is made applicable by Parliament only with effect from 1-4-2004, would become curative in nature, hence, it would apply retrospectively with effect from 1-4- 1988. 19. Secondly, it may be noted that, in Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT [(1997) 3 SCC 472 : (1997) 224 ITR 677] , the scheme of Section 43-B 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 43-B of the Act while computing…

Mr. Abdul Hassn Rizvi, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 788/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.789/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S.Electrical India Adit, Cpc बनाम/ New No.205, Old No.92/2, Lake View Road, Bengaluru. Vs. West Mambalam, Chennai-600 033. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe-2087-M (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri I.Dinesh, Advocate $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.813/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S. Batliboi Renewable Energy Adit, Cpc बनाम/ Solutions Private Ltd. Bengaluru. No.28, Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Vs. Ekkaduthangal, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacb-6055-H (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Kumar (Advocate) – Ld. Ar $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Dr & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.788/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Mr. Abdul Hassan Risvi Adit, Cpc 27, 3Rd Floor, Chindhamani Building, बनाम/ Bengaluru. Meeran Sahib Street, Mount Road, Vs. Chennai-600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Audpr-2171-E (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I.Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43Section 43B

…is made applicable by Parliament only with effect from 1-4-2004, would become curative in nature, hence, it would apply retrospectively with effect from 1-4- 1988. 19. Secondly, it may be noted that, in Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT [(1997) 3 SCC 472 : (1997) 224 ITR 677] , the scheme of Section 43-B 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 43-B of the Act while computing…

Dharmaraj Shankar Ganesh, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 756/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.789/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S.Electrical India Adit, Cpc बनाम/ New No.205, Old No.92/2, Lake View Road, Bengaluru. Vs. West Mambalam, Chennai-600 033. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe-2087-M (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri I.Dinesh, Advocate $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.813/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S. Batliboi Renewable Energy Adit, Cpc बनाम/ Solutions Private Ltd. Bengaluru. No.28, Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Vs. Ekkaduthangal, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacb-6055-H (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent) अपीलाथ!कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Kumar (Advocate) – Ld. Ar $%थ!कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Dr & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.788/Chny/2022 (िनधा0रण वष0 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Mr. Abdul Hassan Risvi Adit, Cpc 27, 3Rd Floor, Chindhamani Building, बनाम/ Bengaluru. Meeran Sahib Street, Mount Road, Vs. Chennai-600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Audpr-2171-E (अपीलाथ!/Appellant) : ($%थ! / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I.Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43Section 43B

…is made applicable by Parliament only with effect from 1-4-2004, would become curative in nature, hence, it would apply retrospectively with effect from 1-4- 1988. 19. Secondly, it may be noted that, in Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT [(1997) 3 SCC 472 : (1997) 224 ITR 677] , the scheme of Section 43-B 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 43-B of the Act while computing…

Kwality Restaurant, Kanpur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

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

ITA 34/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19 Kwality Restaurant V. The Cit(A) 16/97, The Mall Delhi Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaafk8712F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 10 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 10 2022 O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.9.2021 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of 115 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay, Which Is Also Supported By An Affidavit. 3. I Have Gone Through The Application For Condonation Of Delay As Well As The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee & Heard The Contention Of The Ld. D.R. On The Issue Of Condonation Of Delay. The Ld. D.R. Has Objected To The Condonatiion Of Delay & Submitted That The Assessee Is Shifting The Blame Of Delay On Its Counsel. 4. Having Considered The Reasons Explained By The Assessee In The Application For Condonation Of Delay, I Find That The Assessee Has Explained The Cause Of Delay That Due To An Oversight Of The Counsel Of The Assessee, Necessary Steps For Filing

For Appellant: None (Adjournment application)For Respondent: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 194CSection 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 40Section 43B

…ce Act, 2003, which is made applicable by Parliament only with effect from 1-4-2004, would become curative in nature, hence, it would apply retrospectively with effect from 1-4-1988. 19. Secondly, it may be noted that, in Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT [(1997) 3 SCC 472: (1997) 224 ITR 6771, the scheme of Section 43-B 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 43-B of the Ac…

M/S Gulati Extrusions Pvt. Ltd, Kanpur vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 45/LKW/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Oct 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Gulati Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit 17-A, Co-Operative Industrial Circle 2(1)(1) Estate Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaacg5008M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 10 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 10 2022 O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1.3.2021 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of Five Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Director Of The Assessee Company Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay, Stating Therein That The Papers Required For Filing The Appeal Was Sent Through Speed Post On 27.4.2021 Well Within The Limitation Period, However The Same Was Delivered By The Postal Authorities In The Office Of The Tribunal On 5.5.2021. It Was Further Stated That Since The Nominal Delay Of Five Days Was Due To Late Delivery Of The Dak By The Postal Authorities, The Delay May Be Condoned & The Appeal Be Admitted For Hearing. Having Carefully Perused The Application For Condonation Of Delay, I Find That There Was Sufficient Cause For The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal. Accordingly, The Delay Of 5 Days Is Condoned & Admit This Appeal For Hearing.

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R

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

…hich is made applicable by Parliament only with effect from 1-4-2004, would become curative in nature, hence, it would apply retrospectively with effect from 1-4-1988. Page 13 of 23 19. Secondly, it may be noted that, in Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT [(1997) 3 SCC 472: (1997) 224 ITR 6771, the scheme of Section 43-B 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 43-B of the Ac…

Checkmate Services P Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-I

C.A. No.-002833-002833 - 2016Supreme Court12 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…made applicable by Parliament only with effect from 1-4-2004, would become curative in nature, hence, it would apply retrospectively with effect from 1-4-1988. 19. Secondly, it may be noted that, in Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT [(1997) 3 SCC 472 : (1997) 224 ITR 677] , the scheme of Section 43-B 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 43-B of the Act while comp…

Private Eye Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 681/BANG/2022[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B.R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Shankar Prasad K., Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 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…

Smt. Rohini Valmik Gadhave, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax -5, Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 433/PUN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Rohini Valmik Gadhave Vs. Pr.Cit-5, Pune C-Wing, Flat No.603, Mantra Properties, Moshi, Pune – 412105 Pan : Bkvpg9947G Appellant Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Rohini Valmik Gadhave Vs. Pr.CIT-5, Pune C-Wing, Flat No.603, Mantra Properties, Moshi, Pune – 412105 PAN : BKVPG9947G Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri B.C. Malakar Revenue by Shri Saradar Singh Meena Date of hearing 12-07-2022 Date of pronouncement 27-07-2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. GODARA, JM : This assessee‟s appeal for AY 2015-16 arises against the PCIT-5, Pune‟s order dated 13-03-2020 passed in case No.Pn/PrCIT-5/Admn/…

Well Protect Manpower Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Banglore

In the result, we do not perceive any merit in this appeal and accordingly the same stands dismissed

ITA 1094/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R.Kumar & Sh. Anubhav Sharmawell Protect Manpower Vs. Dcit, Services Pvt. Ltd. Cpc, F 22, 2Nd Floor Khasra 737/3 & Bangalore 737/6 Near Mcd School 100 Futa Road, Burari, Delhi-34 Pan : Aaacw4672R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

…Court in the case of Bharat Hotels Ltd. be not applied to its case and also as to why the decisions of various courts being relied upon by the appellant (as listed herebelow) be not ignored. Sl.No. Title Citation No. 1. Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677 (SC) 2. CIT vs. Vinay Cement Ltd. [2007] 213 CTR 268 (SC) 3. CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC) 4. CIT vs. AIMIL LTD. [2010] 321 ITR 508 (Del.) 5. CIT vs. George Williamson (Assam) [2006] 284 ITR 619 (Gau) Ltd. 6. CIT vs. Other vs. Sabari [2008] 298 ITR 141(Kar) Enterprises 7. CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran [2014] 363 ITR 307 (Ra…

Bhupendra Nath Pandey, Varanasi vs. ACIT, R - 03, Varanasi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 31/VNS/2021[2018-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Jul 2022AY 2018-2016

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Bhupendra Nath Pandey Assistant Director Of Income 6-159/27, Kashi Enclave V. Tax (Cpc), Centralized Colony, Pahadiya Sarnath, Processing Center , Varanasi-221007, U.P. Bengaluru-560500 (The Acit, Range-3, Varanasi, U.P.) Pan:Ajfpp1273J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak K Gujarati, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

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

Utkarsh Small Finance Bank Ltd., Varanasi vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 29/VNS/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Jul 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Utkarsh Small Finance National E-Assessment Centre, Bank Limited V. Delhi S-24/1-2, First Floor, Mahavir Nagar, Orderly Bazar, Near Mahavir Mandir, Varanasi- 221001, U.P. Pan:Aabcu9355J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…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…

Lawkush Sharma, Sonebhadra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3 (5), Sonebhadra

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 23/VNS/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Jul 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Lawkush Sharma Assistant Director Of Income 14-495, V.V. Colony, V. Tax (Cpc), Centralized Shakti Nagar, Sonebhadra- Processing Center , 231222, U.P. Bengaluru-560500 Pan:Artps9822Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. K.R.Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

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

M/S Rugs Mart, Varanasi vs. DCIT, Circle - 03, Varanasi

In the result, appeal filed by the assesseeis in ITA No

ITA 21/VNS/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Jul 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Rugs Mart Deputy Commissioner Of Barhi Ewada V. Income Tax (Cpc), Centralized District Varanasi-221207 Processing Center , U.P. Bengaluru-560500 (The Dcit , Circle-3, Varanasi, U.P.) Pan:Aalfr4883R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. R.K.N.Jaiswal,AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

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

M/S. Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle -1, Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 948/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…he payment was genuine and whether it was made out of income from disclosed sources. While interpreting the provisions of this section, the above mischief which was sought to be remedied will have to be borne in mind. ∂ In Allied Motors P. Ltd. vs. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677 (SC), it was held as follows: 5. Section 43B was, therefore, clearly aimed at curbing the activities of those taxpayers who did not discharge their statutory liability of payment of excise ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi & Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangulur…

Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT

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

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

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

Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints Private Limited, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-2, Surat

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs. The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs. The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd

Vinod Kumar Tandon, Allahabad vs. DCIT(CPC), Begaluru

Mayur Uniquoters Limited, Jaipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax NFAC, New Delhi

Batliboi Renewable Energy Soluations Private Limited, Chennai vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

Electrical India, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

Mr. Abdul Hassn Rizvi, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

Dharmaraj Shankar Ganesh, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

Kwality Restaurant, Kanpur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

M/S Gulati Extrusions Pvt. Ltd, Kanpur vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Kanpur

Checkmate Services P Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-I

Private Eye Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

Smt. Rohini Valmik Gadhave, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax -5, Pune

Well Protect Manpower Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Banglore

Bhupendra Nath Pandey, Varanasi vs. ACIT, R - 03, Varanasi

Utkarsh Small Finance Bank Ltd., Varanasi vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

Lawkush Sharma, Sonebhadra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3 (5), Sonebhadra

M/S Rugs Mart, Varanasi vs. DCIT, Circle - 03, Varanasi

M/S. Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle -1, Mangaluru