What is CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. authority for?

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).

How many judgments cite CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.?

1,629 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. (321 ITR 508), spanning 2010 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 36(1)(va), Section 143(1), Section 1961, Section 43B, Section 139(1), Section 154.

CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. (321 ITR 508)

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

…ion 43B read with section 36(1) (va) of the Act. 19. We further note that though the ld. CIT(A) has not disputed the various decisions of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court and various other High Courts including Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs AIMIL Ltd 321 ITR 508 which were brought to his notice by the Ld. AR during the course of appellate proceedings but has decided to follow the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of State Road Transport Corporation (supra). Given the divergent view taken by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court as against consistent view of other High Courts including the Hon’b…

M/S Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 901/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT) a

Section 145(3)Section 40

…Insurance Contribution were paid by the assessee before filing of the return and proof of payment was submitted before the Assessing Officer, the amounts were deductible as deduction. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Aimil Ltd &Ors. reported in 321 ITR 508 held as under:- M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. "As soon as employees' contribution towards PF or ESI is received by the assessee by way of deduction or otherwise from the salary/ wages of the employees, it will be treated as 'income' at the hands of the assessee. It clearly follows there from that if the assessee does not deposit this contributio…

M/S Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 900/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT) a

Section 145(3)Section 40

…Insurance Contribution were paid by the assessee before filing of the return and proof of payment was submitted before the Assessing Officer, the amounts were deductible as deduction. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Aimil Ltd &Ors. reported in 321 ITR 508 held as under:- M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. "As soon as employees' contribution towards PF or ESI is received by the assessee by way of deduction or otherwise from the salary/ wages of the employees, it will be treated as 'income' at the hands of the assessee. It clearly follows there from that if the assessee does not deposit this contributio…

Indore Biotech Inputs & Research P Ltd, Indore vs. DCIT-CPC Banglore, Banglore

In the result, these appeals are allowed

ITA 115/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Indore12 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Indore Biotech Input & Cpc, Bangalore Research Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aabcp 0235 A Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti & Shri Vijay Bansal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Shyam Sunder Trivedi Cpc, Bangalore Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Actpt 3280 G Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Shri Pradeep Kumar Cpc, Bangalore Pariyani, Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Afkpp 3296 G Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Conducted through Virtual Court) Indore Biotech Input & CPC, Bangalore Research Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) PAN: AABCP 0235 A Assessee by Ms. Nisha Lahoti & Shri Vijay Bansal, ARs Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Shyam Sunder Trivedi CPC, Bangalore Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) PAN: ACTPT 3280 G Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Shri Prad…

Shri Pradeep Kumar Pariyani, Indore vs. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi

In the result, these appeals are allowed

ITA 165/IND/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Indore Biotech Input & Cpc, Bangalore Research Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aabcp 0235 A Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti & Shri Vijay Bansal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Shyam Sunder Trivedi Cpc, Bangalore Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Actpt 3280 G Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Shri Pradeep Kumar Cpc, Bangalore Pariyani, Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Afkpp 3296 G Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Conducted through Virtual Court) Indore Biotech Input & CPC, Bangalore Research Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) PAN: AABCP 0235 A Assessee by Ms. Nisha Lahoti & Shri Vijay Bansal, ARs Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Shyam Sunder Trivedi CPC, Bangalore Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) PAN: ACTPT 3280 G Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Shri Prad…

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

…o to Section 43B - was introduced to ensure timely payments were made by the employer to the concerned fund (EPF, ESI, etc.) and avoid the mischief of employers retaining amounts for long periods. That 24 Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Aimil Ltd., [2010] 321 ITR 508 (Delhi High Court). 25 Commissioner of Income-Tax and another Vs. Sabari Enterprises, [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Karnataka High Court). 26 Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd., [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bombay High Court). 27 Commissioner of Income-Tax, Udaipur v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sandh Ltd., [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616 (Rajasthan…

Khosla Profil Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax (Appeasl ), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 550/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalkhosla Profil Private Ltd. 2, Laxmi Tower, A-Wing, 6Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East)-400051 Pan: Aaack1791K ...... Appellant Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Rahul Hakani, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Hakani, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)

…on, we placed reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ghatge Patil Transport (368) ITR 749 and Hindustan Organics Ltd (366) ITR 1 and assessee placed reliance in the case of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. (321 ITR 508). The schedule of actual date of payment as verified by us is as under and confirms the law laid down by Ghatge Patil Transport and CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. (supra): Details of contributions received from employees for various funds as referred to in 20. b section 36(1)(va): Sr.No. Nature of Fund Sum Due date for The actual The actual received payment…

Enmas India Private Limited, Tiruvallur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 714/CHNY/2022[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.714/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020 -21 M/S. Enmas India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Sp 107, Eom Square Ambattur, Vs. Income Tax, Ambattur Indl. Estate S.O., Tiruvallur, Cpc, Bengaluru 560 500. Tamil Nadu 600 058. [Pan:Aabce4825F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Zakir Hussain, C.A. & Shri Sriraj Gokavarapu, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 03.08.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2020-21 On 16.12.2020 Declaring The Total Income At ₹.4,77,23,830/-. The Cpc, Bengaluru Has Completed The 2

For Appellant: Shri Zakir Hussain, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

…covered in favour of the assessee in view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Industrial Security and Intelligence India Pvt. Ltd. as well as the judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Amil Ltd. in 321 ITR 508 and prayed that the same may be followed in assessee’s case. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR dutifully supported the orders of authorities below. 5. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. In this case, the 3 I.T.A. No. 714/Chny/22 CPC, Bengaluru disallowed the…

M/S, Madras Hydraulic Hose Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-4(1), Chennai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 702/CHNY/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singhand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 139(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…on 43B and amendment to first proviso by Finance Act, 2003 are curative in nature and are effective retrospectively, i.e., with effect from 1.4.1988 i.e., the date of insertion of first proviso. The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V. Amil Ltd. reported in 321 ITR 508 held that if the assessee had deposited employee's contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI after due date as prescribed under the relevant Act, but before the due date of filing of return under the Income Tax Act, no disallowance could be made in view of the provisions of Section 43B as amended by Finance Act, 2003. 6. In the present case, th…

M/S Bab Leather Products International, Thirumudivakkam vs. DCIT, Chenai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 665/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.665/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Bab Leather Products The Deputy Commissioner Of International, 162/163, Sidco Vs. Income Tax, Industrial Estate, Thirumudivakkam, Non Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai 600 044. Chennai. [Pan:Aaafb6228M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Tarun, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 28.07.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16 On 23.09.2015 Declaring The Total Income At ₹.54,09,150/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & 2

For Appellant: Shri G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 43B

…on 43B and amendment to first proviso by Finance Act, 2003 are curative in nature and are effective retrospectively, i.e., with effect from 1.4.1988 i.e., the date of insertion of first proviso. The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V. Amil Ltd. reported in 321 ITR 508 held that if the assessee had deposited employee's contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI after due date as prescribed under the relevant Act, but before the due date of filing of return under the Income Tax Act, no disallowance could be made in view of the provisions of Section 43B as amended by Finance Act, 2003. 6. In the present case, th…

Kalpanadevi, Pondicherry vs. ADIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 664/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.664/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Kalpanadevi, The Assistant Director Of 34, Koil Mania Street, Vs. Income Tax, Dharmapuri, Pondicherry 605 009. Cpc, Bengaluru 560 500. [Pan:Csjpk5198N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. N. Dhandapani, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 10.06.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2019-20 Declaring The Total Income At ₹.14,89,000/-. The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Processed Under 2

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. N. Dhandapani, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 43B

…rst proviso by Finance Act, 2003 are curative in nature and 4 I.T.A. No. 664/Chny/22 are effective retrospectively, i.e., with effect from 1.4.1988 i.e., the date of insertion of first proviso. The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V. Amil Ltd. reported in 321 ITR 508 held that if the assessee had deposited employee's contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI after due date as prescribed under the relevant Act, but before the due date of filing of return under the Income Tax Act, no disallowance could be made in view of the provisions of Section 43B as amended by Finance Act, 2003. 6. In the present case, th…

Late Mr.Seshadri Naidu Dharmaraj Rep by Legal Heir - Mr.Shankar Ganesh, Chennai vs. CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 661/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singhand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…on 43B and amendment to first proviso by Finance Act, 2003 are curative in nature and are effective retrospectively, i.e., with effect from 1.4.1988 i.e., the date of insertion of first proviso. The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V. Amil Ltd. reported in 321 ITR 508 held that if the assessee had deposited employee's contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI after due date as prescribed under the relevant Act, but before the due date of filing of return under the Income Tax Act, no disallowance could be made in view of the provisions of Section 43B as amended by Finance Act, 2003. ITA No.660 & 661/Chny/2022…

Late Mr.Seshadri Naidu Dharmaraj Rep by Legal Heir - Mr.Shankar Ganesh, Chennai vs. CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 660/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singhand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…on 43B and amendment to first proviso by Finance Act, 2003 are curative in nature and are effective retrospectively, i.e., with effect from 1.4.1988 i.e., the date of insertion of first proviso. The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V. Amil Ltd. reported in 321 ITR 508 held that if the assessee had deposited employee's contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI after due date as prescribed under the relevant Act, but before the due date of filing of return under the Income Tax Act, no disallowance could be made in view of the provisions of Section 43B as amended by Finance Act, 2003. ITA No.660 & 661/Chny/2022…

M/S Maxima Automation Solutions Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp Circle 4 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 649/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.649/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Maxima Automation Solutions Pvt. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., Represented By Its Managing Income Tax, Director, No. 2/87, Raghaava Nagar, Corporate Circle 4(1), 7Th Street, Moovarasampet, Chennai Madipakkam, Chennai 600 091. [Pan:Aagcm1970L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. James Victor Rajkumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 25.05.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By Eight Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed A 2

For Appellant: Shri P. James Victor RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

…st proviso by Finance Act, 2003 are curative in nature and are effective retrospectively, i.e., with effect from 1.4.1988 i.e., the date of insertion 4 I.T.A. No. 649/Chny/22 of first proviso. The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V. Amil Ltd. reported in 321 ITR 508 held that if the assessee had deposited employee's contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI after due date as prescribed under the relevant Act, but before the due date of filing of return under the Income Tax Act, no disallowance could be made in view of the provisions of Section 43B as amended by Finance Act, 2003. 6. In the present case, th…

Shri Aseen Jindal, Bhopal vs. The ADIT-CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 204/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: FixedITAT Indore22 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Aseem Jindal Adit-Cpc Bhopal Bengaluru Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Afgpj 5199 C Assessee By Ms. Shraddha Piplodiya, Adv. Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2022 O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(iv)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ing the return of income and hence no disallowance is attracted in view of numerous decisions of Hon’ble High Courts favouring the assessee. Some of the decisions relied upon by Ld. AR are mentioned below: (a) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in AIMIL Limited (2010) 321 ITR 508. (b) Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Sagun Foundary Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 145 DTR 265 (c) Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT Vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. / Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mill (2017) 250 Taxman 32 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the issue is also squarely covered in favour of the assessee by decision of this very B…

Rsg Solutions Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-20(2), New Delhi

ITA 1478/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Soni, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR) and Ms. Rajeshjwari R., JCIT, Sr. DR

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

…ards their contributions, which were made beyond such stipulated period, obviously the assessee was not entitled to claim the deduction from its returns. 25. We have perused the order of the Hon‘ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. 321 ITR 508 vide order dated 23.12.2009 held that if the employees' contribution is not deposited by the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts and is deposited late, the employer not only pays interest on delayed payment but can incur penalties also, for which specific provisions are made in the Provident Fund Act as well as the ESI Act. Therefore, the…

ITO, Ward-4(1), Gurgaon vs. Sandeep Sandha, Gurgaon

In the result, all three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2077/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kajal Singh, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…active Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. vide order dated 10.09.2018 in ITA No.983/2018. The extract of the judgment is reproduced as under: “In view of the judgment of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax versus Aimil Limited, (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del) the issue is covered against the Revenue and, therefore, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The legislative intent was /is to ensure that the amount paid is allowed as an expenditure only when payment is actually made. We do not think that the legislative intent and objective is to treat belated payment…

ITO, Ward-4(1), Gurgaon vs. Sandeep Sandha, Gurgaon

In the result, all three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2076/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kajal Singh, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…active Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. vide order dated 10.09.2018 in ITA No.983/2018. The extract of the judgment is reproduced as under: “In view of the judgment of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax versus Aimil Limited, (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del) the issue is covered against the Revenue and, therefore, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The legislative intent was /is to ensure that the amount paid is allowed as an expenditure only when payment is actually made. We do not think that the legislative intent and objective is to treat belated payment…

ITO, Ward-4(1), Gurgaon vs. Sandeep Sandha, Gurgaon

In the result, all three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2075/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kajal Singh, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…active Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. vide order dated 10.09.2018 in ITA No.983/2018. The extract of the judgment is reproduced as under: “In view of the judgment of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax versus Aimil Limited, (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del) the issue is covered against the Revenue and, therefore, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The legislative intent was /is to ensure that the amount paid is allowed as an expenditure only when payment is actually made. We do not think that the legislative intent and objective is to treat belated payment…

Mohinder Nath Behl, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-49(1), Delhi

In the result, all captioned appeals of the respective assessees

ITA 2039/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 139Section 36(1)Section 43B

…in the case of PCIT vs Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt.Ltd. in ITA No.983/2018 [Del.] order dated 10.09.2018 held as under:- “In view of the judgement of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax versus AIMIL Limited, (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del.) the issue is covered against the Revenue and, therefore, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The legislative intent was/is to ensure that the amount paid is allowed as an expenditure only when payment is actually made. We do not think that the legislative intent and objective is to treat belated payment…

CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.

What is CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.

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

M/S Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7-2, Jaipur

M/S Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7-2, Jaipur

Indore Biotech Inputs & Research P Ltd, Indore vs. DCIT-CPC Banglore, Banglore

Shri Pradeep Kumar Pariyani, Indore vs. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi

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

Khosla Profil Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax (Appeasl ), Delhi

Enmas India Private Limited, Tiruvallur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

M/S, Madras Hydraulic Hose Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-4(1), Chennai

M/S Bab Leather Products International, Thirumudivakkam vs. DCIT, Chenai

Kalpanadevi, Pondicherry vs. ADIT, Bangalore

Late Mr.Seshadri Naidu Dharmaraj Rep by Legal Heir - Mr.Shankar Ganesh, Chennai vs. CPC, Bangalore

Late Mr.Seshadri Naidu Dharmaraj Rep by Legal Heir - Mr.Shankar Ganesh, Chennai vs. CPC, Bangalore

M/S Maxima Automation Solutions Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp Circle 4 (1), Chennai

Shri Aseen Jindal, Bhopal vs. The ADIT-CPC, Bengaluru

Rsg Solutions Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-20(2), New Delhi

ITO, Ward-4(1), Gurgaon vs. Sandeep Sandha, Gurgaon

ITO, Ward-4(1), Gurgaon vs. Sandeep Sandha, Gurgaon

ITO, Ward-4(1), Gurgaon vs. Sandeep Sandha, Gurgaon

Mohinder Nath Behl, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-49(1), Delhi