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 1961Section 43BSection 139(1)Section 154Section 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 basissection 36(1)(iv)section 2(24)(x)section 2(24)section 36(1)(va)section 34

Judgments citing CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.

Adarsh Chamanlal Kaul, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1952/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyaladarsh Chamanlal Kaul 10Th Floor 2, It Park, Techniplex Ii, Junction Of Veer Savarkar Flyover, Goregaon (West), Mumbai-400062 Pan: Ahrpk7595A ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Cpc Bangaluru Pin-560500. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Sunil G. Rohra Respondent By : Sh. Mehul Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As (‘Nfac’) Dated 26.08.2021 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. "On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In The Law, Faa Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order Without Providing A Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard In The Course Of Faceless Hearing To The Appellant Without Appreciating The Facts That Submissions Couldn'T Be Uploaded Due To Non- Functional/ Technical Glitches On The Income Tax Portal Since 1St June 2021 Onwards".

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil G. RohraFor Respondent: Sh. Mehul Jain, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…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 Raghuvir Synthetics Ltd. (394) ITR 1, is relevant. In this decision honourable Apex Court held that A.O. is duty bound by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court and any view con…

Hebe Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Central Circle-13, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 257/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: AdvocateFor Respondent: Sr. D. R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 43B

…d that the contributions to PF and ESI were remitted to Govt. account before due dates for filing return of income by the assessee and, therefore, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. 321 ITR 508. 4. We have heard the submissions of the ld. DR and A.R., perused the orders of the authorities below. While processing the return under Section 143(1) of the Act no disallowance 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 appeal is squarely cover…

Elegant Dyeing and Processing Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 776/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Ruchesh Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal, CIT-DR
Section 250

….10.2018 2017 7 ESI April 2018 32374 15.04.2018 17.04.2018 31.10.2018 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…

Elegant Dyeing and Processing Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 775/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Ruchesh Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal, CIT-DR
Section 250

….10.2018 2017 7 ESI April 2018 32374 15.04.2018 17.04.2018 31.10.2018 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…

Torino Laboratories P Ltd, Indore vs. DCIT/ / ACIT 4 (1), Indore

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 6/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Torino Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Dcit/Acit-4(1), Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabct1347B Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.08.2022 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…

Pasupati Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 835/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudharypasupati Spinning & Vs. Dcit Weaving Mills Ltd., Cpc 127-128, Tribuvan Bengaluru Complex, Mathura Road, Ishwar Nagar, New Delhi-110065 Pan No. Aaacp 0164 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By --None-- Revenue By Shri M. Baranwal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.08.2022 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.06.2021 Of 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 115JSection 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 7

…osit the ESI and PF amounts aggregating Rs 45,22,668 before the “due date” within the meaning of section 36(1)(va), read with section 2(24)(x) and section 43B of the I Tax Act 1961, and failed to consider the decision of the jurisdictional Delhi High Court in 321 ITR 508 and The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinay Cement Ltd 313 ITR (St.)on the subject. 3. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.45,22,668 made to income by the Ld DCIT CPC Bangalore by erroneously holding that the amendments made to section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) and section 2(24)(x) of the I tax Act, by the Finance…

Cxc Infotech Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 436/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmacxc Infotech Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit Cpc, C/O Sanjiv Sapra & Associates Bangalore Llp, Ca C-763, New Friends Colony, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecc1887C

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Sapra, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

…31.01.2022 10. The Co-ordinate Bench at Delhi in ITA No. ITA No.5570/Del/2017, M/s. Express Roadway V. ACIT Circle – 8(2) New Delhi, has discussed the relevant law as below : “We find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs.AIMIL Limited (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del) held has under: “17. 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 the ESI Act. Ther…

Danish Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(1), Jaipur

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 257/JPR/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: The Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…DIT, CPC, Bangaluru (supra). So respectfully following the aforesaid referred to order, the disallowances sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) are deleted.” 14. A similar issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd., (2010) 321 ITR 508 wherein it has been held as under:- “The deletion with effect from April 1, 2004 by the Finance Act, 2003 of the second proviso to section 43B of the Income-tax Act, mentioned in section 36(1)(va), that is, the time allowed under the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, as well as the Employees’ State Insurance Act,…

Prahlad Narayan Bairwa, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-7, Jaipur

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 232/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Itat & The Delay Occurred May Kindly Be Condoned.

For Appellant: Miss Shivangi Samdhani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehara (Addl.CIT) a
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…DIT, CPC, Bangaluru (supra). So respectfully following the aforesaid referred to order, the disallowances sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) are deleted.” 14. A similar issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd., (2010) 321 ITR 508 wherein it has been held as under:- “The deletion with effect from April 1, 2004 by the Finance Act, 2003 of the second proviso to section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which stipulates that contributions to the provided fund and Employees State Insurance Fund should be made within the time mentioned in section 36(1)(va), that is, the time al…

Advance Ventilation (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, New Delhi

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

ITA 1835/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36

…the due date of filing of return of income under the Income tax Act. 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…

Akal Information Systems Limited, New Delhi vs. Circle - 2(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1633/DEL/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Rajersh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR
Section 2Section 36

…the due date of filing of return of income under the Income tax Act. 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…

M/S Royal Furnishers, Jammu vs. Assessing Officer Ward - 2 (2), Jammu

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 55/ASR/2022[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Aug 2022

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 263Section 36Section 43B

…cable prospectively. The ld. AR submitted that the issue of the employees’ contribution under PF & ESI Acts is already settled by the Higher Judicial Forums in the cases of CIT v. Vinay Cement Ltd. [2007] 213 CTR 268, CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. [2010] 188 Taxman 265/321 ITR 508, CIT vs Nuchem Ltd [2015] 59 taxmann.com 455 (Punjab & Haryana) and [2013] 40 taxmann.com 371 and Galaxy Industries v. DCIT, Circle-1, Jammu (supra). Accordingly, he prayed that disallowance of Rs. 6,39,490/- made to the returned income on account of Provident Fund and ESI payments, made late but before filing the return u/s 139(1) may kindly…

Roshan Hospital, Bhopal vs. DCIT-5(1), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 42/IND/2022[2019-20]Status: FixedITAT Indore10 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Roshan Hospital Dcit-5(1), 7-A-B, Govind Garden, Raisen Bhopal Road, Govindpura, Bhopal- Vs. 462023 (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aasfr4278B Appellant By None Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 02.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.08.2022 O R D E R

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

…s issue is dealt by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. M/s Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 wherein the issue is decided in favour of the Revenue, without considering the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del.). But the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Pr. CIT vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 983/2018 pronounced on 10.09.2018, the Hon'ble High Court decided the issue in favour of the assessee relying upon the judgment of AIMIL Ltd. (supra). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the legislative intent is to…

Prasanna Chandrasheker Shetty, Mandideep vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 41/IND/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Prasanna Chandrashekher Asst. Director Of Income Tax Shetty, C/O. P. Mogra & Cpc, Bengaluru Associates Chartered Accountants, 203, D.M. Tower, Vs. Janjirwalla Square, 21/1 Race Course Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ahxps2998B Appellant By Shri Pankaj Mogra, Ar Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 02.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.08.2022 O R D E R

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

…r the concerned Act the assessee’s claim to be allowed in view of the various decisions passed by several judicial forums including the Coordinate Bench. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the orders are as follows: (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 (d) Shri Jai Singh Jadesa vs. DCIT (CPC) in ITA No. 214/Ind/2021 Ld. AR further submitted that the issue is also sq…

Shri Girish Deokar, Dewas vs. The ITO -1, Dewas

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 16/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Girish Deokar Ito 305, Yashoda Apartment, 66 Ward-1, Vs. Radhaganj Dewas (M.P.) Dewas (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adapd7130P Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Singi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.08.2022 O R D E R

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

…s issue is dealt by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. M/s Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 wherein the issue is decided in favour of the Revenue, without considering the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del.). But the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Pr. CIT vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 983/2018 pronounced on 10.09.2018, the Hon'ble High Court decided the issue in favour of the assessee relying upon the judgment of AIMIL Ltd. (supra). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the legislative intent is to…

M/S Aakash Global Foods P Ltd, Indore vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 15/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Aakash Global Foods Dcit Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax, Cpc, Survey No.13/1/5,16/2,17/4, Bangalore Vs. Village Kumedi, Tehsil Sanwer, Indore(M.P.) (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadca4544R Appellant By Shri Arpit Gaur, Ar Respondent By Shri Singi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.08.2022 O R D E R

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

…r the concerned Act the assessee’s claim to be allowed in view of the various decisions passed by several judicial forums including the Coordinate Bench. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the orders are as follows: (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 (d) Shri Jai Singh Jadesa vs. DCIT (CPC) in ITA No. 214/Ind/2021 Ld. AR further submitted that the issue is also sq…

M/S Eagle Techsec Communication India P Ltd, Indore vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 11/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Eagle Techsec Dcit Communication India Pvt. Income-Tax, Cpc, Ltd., M-23, New Siyaganj, Bangalore Mal Godam Road, Behind Vs. Shastri Market, Indore, M. P. 452001 (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aacce4785D Appellant By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Ca Respondent By Shri P. K. Singi, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 27.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.08.2022 O R D E R

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

…r the concerned Act the assessee’s claim to be allowed in view of the various decisions passed by several judicial forums including the Coordinate Bench. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the orders are as follows: (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 (d) Shri Jai Singh Jadesa vs. DCIT (CPC) in ITA No. 214/Ind/2021 Ld. AR further submitted that the issue is also sq…

M/S Guruji Products P Ltd, Pithampur vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 10/IND/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Aug 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Guruji Products Pvt. Dcit Ltd., 285, A.B. Road, Income-Tax, Cpc, Pigdamber, Mhow, Vs. Bangalore Pithampur, Mhow (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadca4544R Appellant By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Ar Respondent By Shri P. K. Singi, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 27.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.08.2022 O R D E R

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

…r the concerned Act the assessee’s claim to be allowed in view of the various decisions passed by several judicial forums including the Coordinate Bench. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the orders are as follows: (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 (d) Shri Jai Singh Jadesa vs. DCIT (CPC) in ITA No. 214/Ind/2021 Ld. AR further submitted that the issue is also sq…

Subhash Chander, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1843/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chander Vs. Dcit H-149, Ph-I, Ashok Vihar, Cpc New Delhi-110 052 Bangalore Pan No. Aaapc 1167 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Supriya Mehra, C.A. Revenue By Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.08.2022 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.07.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :-

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 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 actually made. We do not think that the legislative intent and objective is to treat belated payment…

Wadi Services Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 27(3), New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 117/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 250Section 43BSection 5

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Wadi Services Pvt. Ltd., VersuS Income-tax Officer, H.No. 129, Block-D, Ward 27(3), New Delhi Kamla Nagar, New Delhi. PAN: AABCW5617P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri M. Baranwal, Ld. Sr. DR Date of hearing : 01.08.2022 Date of order : 05.08.2022 ORDER PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, J.M. This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 15.09.2020, impugned herein, passed by the learned Com…