What is CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. authority for?

Employee contributions to PF and ESIC, deposited beyond the due date under the respective Acts but within the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1), are allowable deductions under Section 36(1)(va). Such disallowance cannot be made during processing under Section 143(1).

How many judgments cite CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.?

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

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

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

CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. (321 ITR 508)

Sai Creation, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 1021/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 1051/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pratham Motors Pvt. Ltd., Acit, बनाम Suite No. 702, Nilgiri Place, 9 – Bara Khamba Road, Vs. Circle : 20 (1) New Delhi–110 001. Pan No. Aaccp4397E New Delhi. िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : N O N E; राज"वक"ओरसे / Department By : Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. D. R.; A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 1069/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 Manoj Kumar Srivastav Income Tax Officer, बनाम 26-A, Block 7,Gokul Dham Society Lig Flats, Sector : 135, Noida, Vs. Ward : 49 (3) Gautam Buddha Nagar (U.P.) Pan No. Alnpk4727G New Delhi. िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : N O N E; राज"वक"ओरसे / Department By : Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. D. R.; A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 1182/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-20 Seagull Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Acit, बनाम D-3, Lajpat Nagar-1, Circle : 23 (2) New Delhi–110 024. New Delhi. Vs. Pan No. Aabcs2833D

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. D. R

…wards 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…

Tej Singh Ghangas, Panipat vs. ITO, Panipat

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

ITA 1018/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 1051/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pratham Motors Pvt. Ltd., Acit, बनाम Suite No. 702, Nilgiri Place, 9 – Bara Khamba Road, Vs. Circle : 20 (1) New Delhi–110 001. Pan No. Aaccp4397E New Delhi. िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : N O N E; राज"वक"ओरसे / Department By : Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. D. R.; A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 1069/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 Manoj Kumar Srivastav Income Tax Officer, बनाम 26-A, Block 7,Gokul Dham Society Lig Flats, Sector : 135, Noida, Vs. Ward : 49 (3) Gautam Buddha Nagar (U.P.) Pan No. Alnpk4727G New Delhi. िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : N O N E; राज"वक"ओरसे / Department By : Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. D. R.; A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 1182/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-20 Seagull Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Acit, बनाम D-3, Lajpat Nagar-1, Circle : 23 (2) New Delhi–110 024. New Delhi. Vs. Pan No. Aabcs2833D

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. D. R

…wards 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…

Brij Gopal Construction Co. P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1004/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 1051/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pratham Motors Pvt. Ltd., Acit, बनाम Suite No. 702, Nilgiri Place, 9 – Bara Khamba Road, Vs. Circle : 20 (1) New Delhi–110 001. Pan No. Aaccp4397E New Delhi. िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : N O N E; राज"वक"ओरसे / Department By : Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. D. R.; A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 1069/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 Manoj Kumar Srivastav Income Tax Officer, बनाम 26-A, Block 7,Gokul Dham Society Lig Flats, Sector : 135, Noida, Vs. Ward : 49 (3) Gautam Buddha Nagar (U.P.) Pan No. Alnpk4727G New Delhi. िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : N O N E; राज"वक"ओरसे / Department By : Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. D. R.; A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 1182/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-20 Seagull Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Acit, बनाम D-3, Lajpat Nagar-1, Circle : 23 (2) New Delhi–110 024. New Delhi. Vs. Pan No. Aabcs2833D

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. D. R

…wards 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…

Mr. Abhishek Kumar Agarwal, Faridabad vs. Ward 1(1), Faridabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1977/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi

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

Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Faridabad vs. Ward 1(1), Faridabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1975/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi

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

Balraj, Sonepat vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sonipat

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1673/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

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

…. M/s Pro Interactive Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. in ITA no. 983/2018 vide order dated 10.09.2018 in ITA no. 983/2018 has held as under: “In view of the judgment of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. 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…

Balraj, Sonepat vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Sonipat

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1672/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

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

…. M/s Pro Interactive Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. in ITA no. 983/2018 vide order dated 10.09.2018 in ITA no. 983/2018 has held as under: “In view of the judgment of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. 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…

United Coffee House, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-52(4), Delhi

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

ITA 792/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Delhi08 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. United Coffee House, Vs. Income Tax Officer, E-15, Connaught Place, Ward-52(4), Delhi Delhi Pan :Aaafu1260G (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…

Anil Kumar Sharma, Haryana vs. Circle-44(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1830/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri M.R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr.DR

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

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

Ashirwad Carbonics (India) Private Limtied, New Delhi vs. Circle-3(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1721/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 139(1)Section 36Section 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…

M/S Saint-Gobain Indi Private Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed

ITA 241/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (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…

M/S. Saint Gobain India Private Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 240/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (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…

Sk Elecgtricals, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 239/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (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…

Amutha, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed

ITA 238/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022AY 2019-2020

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

For Appellant: Shri B. Suresh (C.A) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (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…

Anjappar Chettinad Ac Restaurant, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed

ITA 224/CHNY/2022[2018-1]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

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

For Appellant: Shri V. Padmanaban (FCA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (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…

Bhagwati Security Services, Saharanpur vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(3), Saharanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1564/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C. आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No.1564/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Bhagwati Security Services, Income Tax Officer, 1St Floor, Kamal Market, बनाम Ward : 3 (3)(3), Paper Mill Road, Brijesh Nagar, Saharanpur. Vs. Saharanpur – 247 001 [U. P.] Pan No. Aadfb5048A अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. D. R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…wance towards contribution to employees’ PF and ESI is warranted as this issue is highly debatable in nature. Even otherwise I find that the issue in appeal 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 case. 6. Reliance is 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). Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.M. Aqua Technologies Ltd. Vs. CIT…

Sushil Kumar, Meerut (Uttarpradesh) vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru, Karnataka(Bengaluru)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1450/DEL/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C. आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No.1450/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Sushil Kumar, Dcit, 70, M/S. S. K. Hosiery, बनाम Cpc, Sadar Bazar, Bengaluru. Vs. Meerut Cantt – 250 001. Pan No. Aekpk3232L अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. D. R

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

…wance towards contribution to employees’ PF and ESI is warranted as this issue is highly debatable in nature. Even otherwise I find that the issue in appeal 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 case. 6. Reliance is 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). Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.M. Aqua Technologies Ltd. Vs. CIT…

Sky I T Infratech Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1030/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C. आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A Nos.1029 & 1030/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Sky I T Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, 202, 2Nd Floor, Plot No. 2, बनाम Cpc, Dda Tower, Sector : 5, Bengaluru. Vs. Rohini, New Delhi – 110 085. Pan No. Aaucs7180A अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kalpit, C.AFor Respondent: Sr. D. R

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 4Section 43

…ted that the contribution to PF and ESI were remitted to Govt. account before due date 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. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.M. Aqua Technologies Ltd. Vs. CIT (Civil Appeal Nos. 4742 – 4743 of 2021 dated 11.08.2021). 4. The ld. DR submits that while processing the returns in both the cases under Section 143(1) on 28.06.2021 of the Act, the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) Bangal…

Sky I T Infratech Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1029/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C. आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A Nos.1029 & 1030/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Sky I T Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, 202, 2Nd Floor, Plot No. 2, बनाम Cpc, Dda Tower, Sector : 5, Bengaluru. Vs. Rohini, New Delhi – 110 085. Pan No. Aaucs7180A अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kalpit, C.AFor Respondent: Sr. D. R

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 4Section 43

…ted that the contribution to PF and ESI were remitted to Govt. account before due date 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. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.M. Aqua Technologies Ltd. Vs. CIT (Civil Appeal Nos. 4742 – 4743 of 2021 dated 11.08.2021). 4. The ld. DR submits that while processing the returns in both the cases under Section 143(1) on 28.06.2021 of the Act, the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) Bangal…

Oc Sweaters LLP, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1711/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1711/Del/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Oc Sweaters Llp, Dcit Cpc F-8, Okhla South East Delhi, Vs. Bangalore. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaefo8261B अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 43A

…wards 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…

CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.

What is CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.

Sai Creation, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Tej Singh Ghangas, Panipat vs. ITO, Panipat

Brij Gopal Construction Co. P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Mr. Abhishek Kumar Agarwal, Faridabad vs. Ward 1(1), Faridabad

Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Faridabad vs. Ward 1(1), Faridabad

Balraj, Sonepat vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sonipat

Balraj, Sonepat vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Sonipat

United Coffee House, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-52(4), Delhi

Anil Kumar Sharma, Haryana vs. Circle-44(1), New Delhi

Ashirwad Carbonics (India) Private Limtied, New Delhi vs. Circle-3(1), Delhi

M/S Saint-Gobain Indi Private Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

M/S. Saint Gobain India Private Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

Sk Elecgtricals, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

Amutha, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

Anjappar Chettinad Ac Restaurant, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

Bhagwati Security Services, Saharanpur vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(3), Saharanpur

Sushil Kumar, Meerut (Uttarpradesh) vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru, Karnataka(Bengaluru)

Sky I T Infratech Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC

Sky I T Infratech Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC

Oc Sweaters LLP, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore