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 508High Court2010#20 most cited

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).

1,629

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. · AIMIL Ltd. · Section 36(1)(va) · Section 43B · employee contribution PF ESIC · delayed deposit provident fund · deposit before 139(1) due date · disallowance 143(1) adjustment · actual payment basis PF ESIC · Section 2(24)(x) · due date for payment of employee contribution

Also reported as

188 Taxmann 265229 CTR 118

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(va)Section 143(1)Section 1961 Section 43B Section 139(1)Section 154 Section 2(24)(x)Section 143(1)(a)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 43(b)section 36(va)section 34(1)(iv)section 3(b)section 43b(b)section 34(1)actual payment basis section 36(1)(iv)section 2(24)(x)section 2(24)section 36(1)(va)section 34

Judgments citing CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.

Worldwide Facilty Management Services Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ADIT, CPC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1636/DEL/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No. 1636/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: AdvocateFor Respondent: [JCIT] - Sr. D. R

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

…overed by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. M/s. Pro Interactive (India) Services Pvt. Ltd. in ITA. No. 983/2018 (order dated 10.09.2018) and the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. 321 ITR 508. 3. It was contended before us that while processing the return under Section 143(1) of the Act the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) Bangalore disallowed the employees’ contribution to ESI and PF and the ld. CIT (Appeals) also sustaining the disallowance relying on various case laws referred to in the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals). The ld. DR…

J J Enterprise, Delhi vs. Circle-52(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal 771/Del/2021 and 1397/Del/ of the respective assessees are allowed and the impugned additions are set aside

ITA 1397/DEL/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharmasr. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By Assessee Revenue By Nos Year(S) Appellant Vs. By Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 771/Del/2021 2019-20 Kamlesh Kumar Cpc, Shri Mukul, Ms. Anjula Singh Engineers Pvt. Bengaluru Adv Jain, Cit Dr Ltd, H. No. 112, Near Shiv Deep Public School, Refinery Township Road, Vpo Dadlana, Panipat Pan: Aadck5251H 2. 759/Del/2021 2018-19 Imi Norgren Herion Cit(A), Shri Ms. Anjula Pvt. Ltd, National Anubhav Jain, Cit Dr 506, Mercantile Faceless Rastogi, Adv House, 15, Kasturba Appeal Gandhi Marg, Centre, Delhi Connaught Place, Delhi 3 1397/Del/2021 2019-20 J.J. Enterprise, Cit(A), Shri Piyush Ms. Anjula 23/24, Ansari Road, National Agarwal, Ca Jain, Cit Dr Daryaganj, Delhi Faceless Appeal Centre

Section 2Section 2(23)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…hi 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…

Apex Insurance Consultant Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward -3(1), New Delhi

ITA 4748/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4748/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Apex Insurance Consultant Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 54, Basement Vinoba Puri, Lajpat Ward-3(1), Nagar-Ii, New Delhi-110024 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca3234H Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Kanav Bali, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.09.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Kanav Bali, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 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 21 Apex Insurance Consultant Ltd. specific provisions are made in the Provident Fund Act as…

ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru, Bengaluru (Karnataka) vs. Shikhar Sadh, Daryaganj Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1460/DEL/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No. 1460/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal

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

…nce towards contribution to employees’ PF and ESI is warranted as this issue is highly debatable in nature. Even otherwise we find that the issue in appeals is squarely covered by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. 321 ITR 508. Ratio of this decision squarely applies to the facts of the assessee’s cases. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Alom Extrusions Limited (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC). 2 I.T.A. No. 1460/Del/2021 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.M. Aqua Technologies Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) held that…

Oynx Management Services Private Limited, Noida vs. ITO, Circle--19(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 864/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi07 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr.DR

Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…ther welfare Mar 2018 15/04/2018 19/04/2018 4057 fund Total 8517014 6. The quarrel is now well settled in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Limited 321 ITR 508 vide order dated 23.12.2009. The Hon'ble High Court held as under: “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 wel…

Wazir Chand Handicraft, Moradabad(U.P) vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Moradabad, Uttarpradesh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1468/DEL/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Sept 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No. 1468/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Wazir Chand Handicrafts, Acit बनाम C/O. Kansal Kapoor & Co., Circle : 1, Vs. 1St Floor, 26-Civil Lines, Moradabad. Near Dayanand Degree College Moradabad [U.P.] – 244 001. Pan No. Aaafw2553L अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Respondent

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal

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

…nce towards contribution to employees’ PF and ESI is warranted as this issue is highly debatable in nature. Even otherwise we find that the issue in appeals is squarely covered by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. 321 ITR 508. Ratio of this decision squarely applies to the facts of the assessee’s cases. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Alom Extrusions Limited (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC). 2 I.T.A. No. 1468/Del/2021 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.M. Aqua Technologies Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) held that…

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

…alueMomentum Software Services Private Limited vs. DCIT I.T.A. No. 2 197/HYD/20 17 [Assessment Year: 2013-14] dated 19.05.2021; 7. Mohan Ram Chaudhary vs. ITO ITA No. 51&54- 55/Jodh/2021 [Assessment Year: 2018-19] dated 28.09.2021; 8. CIT v. Aimil Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 508 9. CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 326 10. CIT vs. Merchem Ltd. 378 ITR 443 (Kerala)) 11. Sagun Foundry (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2017] 291 CTR 557 (Allahabad) 12. Bata India Ltd. vs. DCIT [2020] 180 ITD 464 (Kolkata - Trib.) 13. DCIT vs. Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd. [2016] 160 lTD 432 (Visakhapatnam - Trib.) 14. Nuzivedu…

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Metro Institute of Medical Science Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3573/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 43

…Amount Due Date Payment Date Mar 12 23,298.00 20.04.2012 10.05.2012 17. The quarrel is now well settled in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Limited 321 ITR 508 vide order dated 23.12.2009. The Hon'ble High Court held as under: “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 wel…

Mahinder Kumar Dixit, Haryana vs. Ward-1(5), Faridabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 848/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedimahinder Kumar Dixit Vs. Ward – 1(5) Vpo-Bhainsra Wali, Faridabad Ballabgarh, Faridabad Haryana-121 004 Pan No. Aiwpd 2160 I (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mukul Kedia, C.A. Revenue By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.09.2022 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2021 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :-

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

…Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. ITA no. 983/2018 dated 10.09.2018 has already taken a view in favour of the assessee by holding 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 5 actually made. We do not think that the legislative intent and objective is to treat belated paymen…

DCIT Circle 27(1), New Delhi vs. Usha International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5914/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri [Dr.] B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. P. Gupta, Advocate; &For Respondent: [CIT] - D. R

Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…urn applicable in the case of the appellant. Therefore, the impugned addition made in the ground of appeal (Rs. 16717/-) deserves to be deleted in view of various decisions of the Delhi High Court including the decision in the case of CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. (2010) 311 ITR 508 (Del). Accordingly, disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.16,717/- is directed to be deleted. ” 12. Once the payments have been made on or due date of return of income then we do not find any infirmity in the aforesaid finding of/the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly this ground of the revenue is dismissed. 10. Respectfully following the aforem…

Decimal Technologies Private Limited, Fatehabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Fatehabad

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 460/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Addressing The Grievance Of The Assessee, It Is Relevant To Address Delay Of 2 Days Pointed Out By The Registry

For Appellant: Shri Sankalp Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Sudershan, Sr.DR

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ , च"डीगढ़ च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ च"डीगढ़ च"डीगढ़ च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ ITA No. 460 & 461/CHD/2022 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s Decimal Technologies Pvt.Ltd., The ITO, बनाम NHT Building, GT Road, Ward-1, VS Fatehabad. Fatehabad. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: AADCD2821N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ि…

Sathiapal Engineers (India) Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 610/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 610/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 Sathiapal Engineers (India) Pvt. Ltd. The Assistant /Deputy Commissioner Formerly Known As Sathiapal Vs. Of Income Tax, Engineers India Ltd., New No. 14, Cpc, Bengaluru. Old No. 25, Temple Street, Alagappa Nagar, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. [Pan:Aahcs2295P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Viswanathan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 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 26.05.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Relates To Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Pf & Esi Payments.

For Appellant: Shri R. Viswanathan, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(v)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…

Ashida Electronics Pvt Ltd, Thane vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2050/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalashida Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. A-308, Ashida House, Road No.21, Wagle Estate, Thane (West)-400604. Pan: Aabca5020G ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Centralized Processing Center, Income Tax Department, Bengaluru-560500 ..... Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Utkarsha Bhanap Respondent By : Sh. Mehul Jain Date Of Hearing : 02/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Ms. Utkarsha BhanapFor Respondent: Sh. Mehul Jain

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)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). 8. We have considered the relevant decisions relied upon and facts of the case, in this regard the decision of honourable Supreme Court in the matter of C.I.T vs 4 ITA No. 2050/Mum/2021-Ashida Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Raghuvir Synthetics Ltd. (394) ITR 1, is relevant. In this decision honourable Apex Court held that A.O. is duty bound by the de…

Sona Fashions Inc, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-29(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1217/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Memberassessment Year: 2018-19 Sona Fashions Inc. Vs. Ito, H 9, Mohan Coop. Industrial Ward-29(5), Estate, B1, Mathura Road, New Delhi South Delhi, New Delhi Pan :Aacfs7353L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 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…

Magsons Exports, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bengluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 551/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasadmagsons Exports Vs. Dcit D-41, Okhla Industrial Cpc Area, Phase – 1, Bengluru New Delhi – 110 020 Pan : Aabfm 1226 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Bal Kishan Chhabra, C.A. Revenue By Shri Jeetendra Chand, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 30.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.08.2022 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

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

…bmitted that since the amounts have been deposited before the filing of return of income, no disallowance is called for and for aforesaid proposition, he relied on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. ITA No.1063/2008 reported in 321 ITR 508 (Del). 6. Learned DR on the other hand supported the order of lower authorities and also placed reliance on the decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Vedvan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT in ITA No.1312/Del/2020 order dated 26.08.2021. He also submitted that the amendment brought out by Finance Act 2021 would be applicable to the present case…

DCIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi vs. G4S Facility Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 559/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. SalilKapoor, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Kant Choudhary, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 26(1)(va)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…and employer's contribution are covered under the amendment to Sec. 43B of the I.T. Act. 6.4 Following the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Vinay Cement 213 CTR 268, the Hon'ble High Court, Delhi in CIT vs. AIMIL Limited [2010] 321 ITR 508 has held that- "We may only add 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 ESI Act. Therefore, the Act…

DCIT, Circle-11(1), New Delhi vs. Holisol Logistics P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands

ITA 4361/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Ravi Kant Choudhary, Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Mehra, Ld. CA

Section 250Section 36Section 46ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

…pon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of 10 DCIT Vs Holisol Logistrics P. Ltd CIT vs. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P) Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 167 (P&H) and by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Limited, 321 ITR 508(Del), wherein both the employer’s and employees’ contributions have been treated as covered under the provisions of section 43B of the Act, deleted the penalty under consideration 6.4 We have given thoughtful consideration the decision made by the Ld. Commissioner on the issue in hand. Recently, the jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT…

Shri Indhira Cottons Mills P Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 563/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./ I. T. A. No.563/Chny/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) M/S. Shri Indhira Cotton Mills P.Ltd. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of P.B No.6 , Jagampet Gardens, Income Tax, Cpc, Chitlapakkam Main Road, Chrompet, Bengaluru. Chennai-600 044. Pan: Aaaci 0899J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 25.08.2022

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

Nitrex Chemicals India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Neac, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 713/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasadnitrex Chemicals India Ltd. Vs. Neac 1116, Ansal Tower, 38 New Delhi Nehru Place, New Delhi-19 Pan No. Aaacf 7820 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By -None- Revenue By Shri Jitender Chand, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 29.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2022 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.05.2021 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20

Section 143(1)Section 2Section 2(23)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. ITA no. 983/2018 dated 10.09.2018 has already taken a view in favour of the assessee by holding 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…

Trim India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1300/DEL/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal, CIT-DR

Section 2Section 250Section 36Section 43B

…1.2019 55.667/- Total 34,26,506/- Total 34.26.510/- [Rounding Off] 4. The quarrel is now well settled in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Limited 321 ITR 508 vide order dated 23.12.2009. The Hon'ble High Court held as under: “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 wel…