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.

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

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

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

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

For Appellant: Sh. K.R.Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…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…

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

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

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

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

For Appellant: Sh. R.K.N.Jaiswal,AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…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…

DCIT, CC -3 (1), Chennai vs. M/S. Talentpro India Hr Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 459/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)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…

Weavers India, Haryana vs. ACIT, Circle-, Panipat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1617/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi06 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaweavers India Vs. Acit Plot No.171, Sector-25 Circle - Panipat Part – 2, New Delhi – 132103

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36Section 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…

ACIT, Circle-26(2), New Delhi vs. Vamani Overseas P.Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 9372/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ani Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit, Vs. Vamani Overseas P Ltd, Circle-26(2), Ta-3/146-C, Tuglakabad, New Delhi South Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcv6458R

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ed 31.01.2022 8. 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…

Tarsem Lal Verma, Haryana vs. Circle 66(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 187/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmatarsem Lal Verma Vs. Circle – 66(1) C/O. House No.2068, Delhi Sector – 08, Faridabad, Haryana – 121 006

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 actually made. We do not think that the legislative intent and objective is to treat belated payment…

Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT Circle -6, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 37/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: The Due Date Of Deposit As Mentioned In Relevant Act Despite The Fact The Amount Was Deposited In Relevant Fund Before Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Return Under Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend Or Withdraw Any Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Mudit Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘B’ JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 37/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2019-20 cuke Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar ACIT/DCIT Mills Limited Vs. Circle-06, Jaipur 4th Floor Nehru Sehkar Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACR 8906 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Sh. Mudit…

Sam Human Resources P Ltd, Indore vs. The ITO 3(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 182/IND/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

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 Page 2 of 7 Sam Human Resources P. Ltd. A.Y. 2019-20 Ld. AR further submitted that the issue is also squarely covered…

Smt Smita Bhalot, Dhar vs. The Adrt CPC Bengaluru, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 170/IND/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(iv)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234ASection 234BSection 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 Ld. AR further submitted that the issue is also squarely covered in favour of the assessee by several decisions of t…

Shri Sunil Gurjar, Dhar vs. The ADIT CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 167/IND/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234Section 234BSection 234CSection 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 Ld. AR further submitted that the issue is also squarely covered in favour of the assessee by several decisions of t…

Agrawala Sweets and Restaurant, Hyderabad vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 72/HYD/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jun 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Darshan Jakharia, ARFor Respondent: 20-06-2022
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…In a number of appeals, the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal had also taken the view that the assessee is entitled to the deduction of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI as is held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Limited (2010) 188 Taxmann 265 (Delhi), following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vinay Cement Limited (2007) 213 CTR 268 (Supreme Court). 7. In the case of the assessee, it is not disputed that the employees’ contributions towards ESI and PF was deducted by the assessee and Page 3 of 5 remitted in the Government Treasury within the due date o…

Apple Flexipack P Ltd, Indore vs. DCIT ( CPC ), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 264/IND/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Antara Bansal & Vijay BansalFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ssee claimed the benefit of Section as the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the various decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts across the country most specifically that of the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of AIMIL Limited (2010) 321 ITR 508. The Ld. A.R. submitted that prima facie adjustment under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act could not be made as the same was beyond the scope of provisions of Section 143(1) of the Act and that the said adjustment was made giving the assessee opportunity of being heard. The assessee challenged the action of the CPC in invoking provisions of Section 1…

Hemant Kumar Gupta, Delhi vs. Ward 62(4), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Gupta, C. AFor Respondent: 28/06/2022
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)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 me that while processing the return under Section 143(1) of the Act and also while completing the assessments under Section 143(3) the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) Bangalore and the Assessing Officer respectively disallowed the employees’ contribution to ESI and PF and the ld. CIT (Appeals) also sustaining the d…

Lauls Limited, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeals for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2015-16

ITA 5485/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.473/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 बनाम Lauls Limited Dcit Malhotra Khandelwal & Co., Vs. Circle1, 42, Neelam Flyover, 1St Floor, Faridabad. Faridabad. Pan No. Aaacl3118P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3284 & 5485/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम Lauls Limited Dcit Malhotra Khandelwal & Co., Vs. Circle1, 41-46, Hardware Chowk, Faridabad. Near Govt. Press, Faridabad, Haryana. Pan No. Aaacl3118P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)

…es and perusing the orders of the authorities below, we observe that the assessee deposited Employees Contribution to Provident Fund before due date for filing return of income. We find that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Limited (321 ITR 508) has held that no disallowance of PF/ESI contribution is called for when the amounts are deposited before filing the return of income. Thus, respectfully following the said decision, we delete the disallowance made towards employees contribution of Rs.1,20,067/- towards Provident Fund. I.T.A.Nos.473/Del/2017, 3284 & 5485/Del/2018 8. Coming t…

Lauls Limited, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeals for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2015-16

ITA 3284/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.473/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 बनाम Lauls Limited Dcit Malhotra Khandelwal & Co., Vs. Circle1, 42, Neelam Flyover, 1St Floor, Faridabad. Faridabad. Pan No. Aaacl3118P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3284 & 5485/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम Lauls Limited Dcit Malhotra Khandelwal & Co., Vs. Circle1, 41-46, Hardware Chowk, Faridabad. Near Govt. Press, Faridabad, Haryana. Pan No. Aaacl3118P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)

…es and perusing the orders of the authorities below, we observe that the assessee deposited Employees Contribution to Provident Fund before due date for filing return of income. We find that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Limited (321 ITR 508) has held that no disallowance of PF/ESI contribution is called for when the amounts are deposited before filing the return of income. Thus, respectfully following the said decision, we delete the disallowance made towards employees contribution of Rs.1,20,067/- towards Provident Fund. I.T.A.Nos.473/Del/2017, 3284 & 5485/Del/2018 8. Coming t…

M/S. Lauls Limited, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeals for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2015-16

ITA 473/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.473/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 बनाम Lauls Limited Dcit Malhotra Khandelwal & Co., Vs. Circle1, 42, Neelam Flyover, 1St Floor, Faridabad. Faridabad. Pan No. Aaacl3118P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3284 & 5485/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम Lauls Limited Dcit Malhotra Khandelwal & Co., Vs. Circle1, 41-46, Hardware Chowk, Faridabad. Near Govt. Press, Faridabad, Haryana. Pan No. Aaacl3118P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)

…es and perusing the orders of the authorities below, we observe that the assessee deposited Employees Contribution to Provident Fund before due date for filing return of income. We find that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Limited (321 ITR 508) has held that no disallowance of PF/ESI contribution is called for when the amounts are deposited before filing the return of income. Thus, respectfully following the said decision, we delete the disallowance made towards employees contribution of Rs.1,20,067/- towards Provident Fund. I.T.A.Nos.473/Del/2017, 3284 & 5485/Del/2018 8. Coming t…

Magic Auto Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Central Circle 13, Delhi

ITA 27/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 27/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Magic Auto Pvt. Ltd., Vs Adit, 7/56, Desh Bandhu Gupta Cpc, Road, Karol Bagh, Central Delhi, Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm4873C Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N. K. Bansal, 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 Magic Auto Pvt. Ltd. specific provisions are made in the Provident Fund Act as well as the…

Gurudev Motors Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed

ITA 490/CHNY/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV 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. 6. In the present case, th…

Anjappar Chettinad Ac Restaurant, Chennai vs. ITO. Non Corp Ward 1(1), Chennai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 444/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri V. Padmanabhan(C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Prakash P. Kishinchandani (JCIT)-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. 6. In the present case, th…

ITO, Ward1(1), Trichy vs. Anjappar Chettinad Restaurant, Trichy

Appeal is allowed

ITA 443/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri V. Padmanabhan(C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Prakash P. Kishinchandani (JCIT)-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. 6. In the present case, th…