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 367,368 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.

Lalchnd Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 108/CTK/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack06 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.95 & 99/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2018-2019 & 2019-2020) Purusottama Estates & Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Resorts Private Limited, Sri Nahar, Grand Road, Puri-752001 Pan No. : Aabcp 8924 A & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.97 & 98/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Lalchnd Resort Private Limited, Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Plot No.6, Hotel New Marion, Janpath, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacl 7289 H & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.108 & 109/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Lalchnd Jewellers Private Limited Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore 4Th Floor, Lalchand Market Complex, Station Square, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacl 2556 P & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.110, 111 & 112/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 To 2019-2020) Lalchnd Gem & Jeweller Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Private Limited, 1, Lalchand Market Complex, Station Square, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaccl 9025 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.K.Sabat, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/04/2022

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Sabat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, CIT-DR
Section 1(2)(a)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 36Section 43B

…lhi High Court in the case of Pro Interactive Service (India) (P.) Ltd. (supra). 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 11 ITA Nos.95&99/CTK/2021, ITA Nos.97&98/CTK/2021 ITA Nos.108&109/CTK/2021 & ITA Nos.110-112/CTK/2021 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 expenditure only when payment is…

Pashupati Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 101/CTK/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack06 Apr 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam,CIT-DR
Section 1(2)(a)Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36Section 43B

…lhi High Court in the case of Pro Interactive Service (India) (P.) Ltd. (supra). 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 expenditure only when payment is actually made. We do not think that the legislative intent and objective is to treat belated payment of…

Dinesh Pratap Singh, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 100/CTK/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack06 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.100/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2018-2019) Dinesh Pratap Singh, Vs Dcit, Circle-1(1), Cuttack At-Hudiashi, Near Nac Gate, Joda, Keonjhar Pan No. : Baaps 4341 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattanaik, Ar : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Made Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021, Passed By The Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. The Sole Issue Involved In The Present Appeal Is With Regard To Confirming The Addition Of Rs.7,60,679/- Towards Late Payment Of Employees Contribution To Provident Fund & Esi. 3. In The Instant Appeal, On Perusal Of The Assessment Record, We Found That The Assessee Has Filed His Return Of Income Electronically On 02.10.2018 Declaring Total Income At Rs.62,47,268/-. The Ao Made Addition On Account Of Delay In Depositing Employees Contribution To Pf & Esi, Which Has Also Been Confirmed By The Cit(A). In This Regard, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee In His Written Submissions, Placed Before Us, At Page 4

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattanaik, AR
Section 1(2)(a)Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36Section 43B

…lhi High Court in the case of Pro Interactive Service (India) (P.) Ltd. (supra). 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 expenditure only when payment is actually made. We do not think that the legislative intent and objective is to treat belated payment of…

Classic Aircon, India vs. DCIT CPC, India

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 285/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Cit(A)-Iii, Jaipur Was Rejected /Dismissed Vide Order Dated 20.09.2021 & Same Was Served Upon The Appellant On 20.09.2021 Itself Through E-Mail. Classic Aircon Vs. Dcit, Cpc

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)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.” 16. 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…

Jangloos Chandak Creation Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 495/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am]

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

…in favor of the revenue, however the Hon’ble High Court in that case (Bharat Hotels Ltd.) had not considered the earlier Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court which was binding on a Division Bench in the case of CIT vs. Aimil Ltd. &Ors. Reported in 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) wherein the head notes reads as under: “Late deposit of PF and ESI - During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee had deposited employers’ contribution as well as employees' contribution towards provident fund and ESI after the due date, as prescribed under the relevant Act/Rules. Accordingly, he m…

Jangloos Chandak Creation Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 494/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am]

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

…in favor of the revenue, however the Hon’ble High Court in that case (Bharat Hotels Ltd.) had not considered the earlier Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court which was binding on a Division Bench in the case of CIT vs. Aimil Ltd. &Ors. Reported in 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) wherein the head notes reads as under: “Late deposit of PF and ESI - During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee had deposited employers’ contribution as well as employees' contribution towards provident fund and ESI after the due date, as prescribed under the relevant Act/Rules. Accordingly, he m…

Manful Solutions, Delhi vs. Ward 54(4), Delhi

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

ITA 94/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Ravi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang, Senior DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…en paid before the due date of filing of return of income u/s.139(1), then it is allowable under the provision of Section 43B. This position was clear by the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. as reported in (2009) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) wherein following the ratio and principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vinay Cement (supra), their Lordship have held as under: “14. When we keep that proposition in mind and also take into consideration various judgments where Vinay Cement (supra) is applied and followed, it will not be possible to accept the conten…

Anup Service Station, Delhi vs. Ward-30(2), Delhi

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

ITA 75/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Sh. Suresh K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ishtiyaque Ahmed, CIT/DR
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.74 & 75/Del/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Anup Service Station, vs. DCIT, CPC, Plot No. 10, DDA Community Centre, Bengaluru. Opp. Jahanpanah Club, Alaknanda, Delhi. PAN : AAGFA7079K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Suresh K. Gupta, CA Respondent by: Sh. Ishtiyaque Ahmed, CIT/DR Date of hearing: 05.04.2022 Date of order : 05.04.2022 ORDER PER K. R.K. PANDA, A.M. These appeals by the assessee are directed against the orders passed…

Anup Service Station, Delhi vs. Ward-30(2), Delhi

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

ITA 74/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Sh. Suresh K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ishtiyaque Ahmed, CIT/DR
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.74 & 75/Del/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Anup Service Station, vs. DCIT, CPC, Plot No. 10, DDA Community Centre, Bengaluru. Opp. Jahanpanah Club, Alaknanda, Delhi. PAN : AAGFA7079K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Suresh K. Gupta, CA Respondent by: Sh. Ishtiyaque Ahmed, CIT/DR Date of hearing: 05.04.2022 Date of order : 05.04.2022 ORDER PER K. R.K. PANDA, A.M. These appeals by the assessee are directed against the orders passed…

Dsd and Matwar Services Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Ward-7(4), Delhi

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

ITA 69/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang, Senior DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…en paid before the due date of filing of return of income u/s.139(1), then it is allowable under the provision of Section 43B. This position was clear by the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. as reported in (2009) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) wherein following the ratio and principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vinay Cement (supra), their Lordship have held as under: “14. When we keep that proposition in mind and also take into consideration various judgments where Vinay Cement (supra) is applied and followed, it will not be possible to accept the conten…

Dsd and Matwar Services Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Ward-7(4), Delhi

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

ITA 68/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang, Senior DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…en paid before the due date of filing of return of income u/s.139(1), then it is allowable under the provision of Section 43B. This position was clear by the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. as reported in (2009) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) wherein following the ratio and principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vinay Cement (supra), their Lordship have held as under: “14. When we keep that proposition in mind and also take into consideration various judgments where Vinay Cement (supra) is applied and followed, it will not be possible to accept the conten…

Jai Singh Jadesa, Indore vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 214/IND/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri G.B. Agrawal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 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 A.Y. 2018-19 Page 3 of 6 action of the CPC in invoki…

Flourtech Engineers P Ltd, Faridabad vs. Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

ITA 67/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Singla, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang, Senior DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…date of filing of return of income 3 ITA No.67/Del./2022 u/s.139(1), then it is allowable under the provision of Section 43B. This position was clear by the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. as reported in (2009) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) wherein following the ratio and principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vinay Cement (supra), their Lordship have held as under: “14. When we keep that proposition in mind and also take into consideration various judgments where Vinay Cement (supra) is applied and followed, it will not be possible to accept the conten…

Faariha Tyagi, Haryana vs. Ward 1(4), Gurgaon

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

ITA 51/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Garg, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang, Senior DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…en paid before the due date of filing of return of income u/s.139(1), then it is allowable under the provision of Section 43B. This position was clear by the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. as reported in (2009) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) wherein following the ratio and principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vinay Cement (supra), their Lordship have held as under: “14. When we keep that proposition in mind and also take into consideration various judgments where Vinay Cement (supra) is applied and followed, it will not be possible to accept the conten…

Rajesh Kumar, Faridabad vs. Ward 2(2), Faridabad

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

ITA 41/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Jitender Wadhva, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang, Senior DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…date of filing of return of income 3 ITA No.41/Del./2022 u/s.139(1), then it is allowable under the provision of Section 43B. This position was clear by the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. as reported in (2009) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) wherein following the ratio and principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vinay Cement (supra), their Lordship have held as under: “14. When we keep that proposition in mind and also take into consideration various judgments where Vinay Cement (supra) is applied and followed, it will not be possible to accept the conten…

Connect International Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward 6(3), Delhi

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

ITA 30/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Malav Goswami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang, Senior DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…en paid before the due date of filing of return of income u/s.139(1), then it is allowable under the provision of Section 43B. This position was clear by the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. as reported in (2009) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) wherein following the ratio and principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vinay Cement (supra), their Lordship have held as under: “14. When we keep that proposition in mind and also take into consideration various judgments where Vinay Cement (supra) is applied and followed, it will not be possible to accept the conten…

Connect International Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward 6(3), Delhi

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

ITA 29/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Malav Goswami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang, Senior DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…en paid before the due date of filing of return of income u/s.139(1), then it is allowable under the provision of Section 43B. This position was clear by the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. as reported in (2009) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) wherein following the ratio and principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vinay Cement (supra), their Lordship have held as under: “14. When we keep that proposition in mind and also take into consideration various judgments where Vinay Cement (supra) is applied and followed, it will not be possible to accept the conten…

Multi Max Engineering Work Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Circle 17(2), Delhi

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

ITA 1/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: PendingITAT Delhi04 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang, Senior DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…date of filing of return of income 3 ITA No.1/Del./2022 u/s.139(1), then it is allowable under the provision of Section 43B. This position was clear by the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. as reported in (2009) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) wherein following the ratio and principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vinay Cement (supra), their Lordship have held as under: “14. When we keep that proposition in mind and also take into consideration various judgments where Vinay Cement (supra) is applied and followed, it will not be possible to accept the conten…

M/S Balaji Aluminium Alloys Private Limited, Faridabad vs. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

ITA 1190/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Jitender Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang, Senior DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…en paid before the due date of filing of return of income u/s.139(1), then it is allowable under the provision of Section 43B. This position was clear by the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. as reported in (2009) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) wherein following the ratio and principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vinay Cement (supra), their Lordship have held as under: “14. When we keep that proposition in mind and also take into consideration various judgments where Vinay Cement (supra) is applied and followed, it will not be possible to accept the conten…

Siddhi Enterprises, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-44(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 913/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C. (Through Video Conferencing) आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A Nos. 912 & 913/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/S. Siddhi Enterprises, Income Tax Officer, C–5, Lawrence Road बनाम Ward : 44 (1), Industrial Area, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 035. Pan No. Aawfs2986H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Farhat Khan, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…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…