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.

Hari Prakash, Gurugram vs. Itio Ward 62(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2361/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri J.S. Kochar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(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…

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)

…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 (Raj) Nigam Ltd. 8. Essae Teraoka P. Ltd. vs. DCIT [2014] 366 ITR 408 (Kar) 9. CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports [2014] 368 ITR 749 (Bom) Ltd. 10. CIT vs. Rajas…

Addl . CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Gaursons Realty Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2662/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Gupta, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…er, this circular states that it does not apply to claim of deduction relating to employee's contribution to welfare funds which are governed by section 36(1)(va). (viii) However, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its judgement in the case of CIT vs AIMIL Ltd. (321 ITR 508) while examining this issue in 2010 had held that no disallowance could be made in view of the provisions of section 43B, as amended by Finance Act, 2003.” 8. We observe that Ld. CIT(A) has, inter alia, followed the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Aimil Ltd. 321 ITR 508 (Del). We are conscious that there is almost unanimity among…

M/S Amalgamations Repco Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 559/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri R,Vijayaraghvan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. 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. 6. In the present case, th…

Srm Sweets and Cakes, Erode vs. ADIT-CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 545/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 21.07.2022
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 5

…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…

Riflex Industries Private Limited, Chennai vs. CIT[A], NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 536/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 21.07.2022
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)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…

Ideal Beach Resort, Neelankarai vs. The Assesing Officer, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 531/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 21.07.2022
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 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…

Spr Construction Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 520/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Respondent: 21.07.2022
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 25Section 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…

R.Ramakrishnan, Tirupur vs. DCIT, Bengaluru

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

ITA 513/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 21.07.2022
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)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 Autotech Industries [ India ] Private Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 500/CHNY/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 21.07.2022
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)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…

Airtec Systems, Coimbatore vs. ADIT, Bangalore

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee for

ITA 493/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 21.07.2022
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 438

…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…

Airtec Systems, Coimbatore vs. ADIT, Bangalore

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee for

ITA 492/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 21.07.2022
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 438

…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…

Dr B Lal Clinical Laboratory Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-7, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 205/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal (Adv.)For Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…is deposited before the due date of filing of return of income, no disallowance U/s 36(1)(va) can be made and that this issue is settled in favour of the assesseee by the judgments of Hon’ble High Courts, which are produced as under:- 1. Aimil Limited (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) 2. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur ( 2014) 363 ITR 70 (Rajasthan) 3. Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 408 (Kar.) 4. Spectrum Consultants India P. Ltd. (2014) 2 ITR-OL 622 5. GhatgePatil Transports ltd. 368 ITR 749 6. CIT vs. Sabari Enterprises 298 ITR 141 (Karn) 7. CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Ut…

Amardeep Singh Bedi, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range-62, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan Panday, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…. Ltd. vide order dated 10.09.2018 in ITA No.983/2018. The extract of the judgment is I.T.A. No.258/DEL/2020 3 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…

Ravindra Nath Sahni, New Delhi vs. ACIT CPC, New Delhi

ITA 1784/DEL/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1784/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Ravindra Nath Saini, Vs Acit, 51, Pashim Marg, Vsant Vihar, Cpc, New Delhi-110057 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abjps2875D Assessee By : Sh. A. K. Batra, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Shankar Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.07.2022

For Appellant: Sh. A. K. Batra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Shankar Gupta, Sr. 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 Ravindra Nath Saini specific provisions are made in the Provident Fund Act as well as the…

Jaksons Agencies, Cuttack vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 141/CTK/2021[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack11 Jul 2022AY 2016-17
Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…he Assessee or the judgment which favors the Assesseemay be followed, hence for brevity we are referring the judgments of the jurisdictional High Court, which covered the issue. 3.4 The Hon‟bleJurisdictional high Court in the case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd {(2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del)}affirmed the action of the ITAT in deleting the addition relating to employees‟ contribution deposited before the due date of filing of return, in respect of Provident Fund and ESI made by the Assessing Officer under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3.5. Again the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs., Pro…

Addl.CIT, Special Range-8, New Delhi vs. Shivalik Prints Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 75/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Astha Chandraaddl. Cit Vs. Shivalik Prints Ltd. Special Range – 8, C-2/54, 5Th Floor, New Delhi Rajasthali Apartments, Pitampura, New Delhi-34 Pan No. Aadcs 6186 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Praveen Kumar, C.A. Revenue By Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.07.2022 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.10.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under:-

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(23)(x)Section 2(24)(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 4 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 paymen…

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Garg Acrylics Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 6435/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 2(24)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e the disallowance of Rs.23,82,106/-. The AR of the appellant has stated that the same was paid before filing of the return. Respectfully following the decision by the jurisdictional Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its judgement in the case of CIT vs AIMIL Ltd. (321 ITR 508), the deposit of employee's contribution of PF and ESI of Rs.23,82,106/- by the appellant beyond the due date u/s 36(1)(va), but before the due date of filing of Income Tax Return, is allowed. This is also in line with maintaining judicial discipline on this issue. Therefore, the ground no.4 is allowed.” 9. Upon hearing ld. DR of the Revenue, we…

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

…Security (supra) in favour of tax-payer referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Limited reported in 319 ITR 306(SC) and decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Aimil Limited reported in (2010) 321 ITR 508(Del.) , and Hon'ble Madras High Court held as under : 5. We find that the Tribunal has rightly relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Alom Extrusion Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 306, whereby , the Supreme Court held that omission of second proviso to Section 43B and amendment to first proviso by Finance Act, 2003 are curati…

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)

…Security (supra) in favour of tax-payer referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Limited reported in 319 ITR 306(SC) and decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Aimil Limited reported in (2010) 321 ITR 508(Del.) , and Hon'ble Madras High Court held as under : 5. We find that the Tribunal has rightly relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Alom Extrusion Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 306, whereby , the Supreme Court held that omission of second proviso to Section 43B and amendment to first proviso by Finance Act, 2003 are curati…