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.

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

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

ITA 912/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

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…

Mithila and Mithila Enterprise, New Delhi vs. Ward- 49(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 1906/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, A N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia(Through Video Conferencing) आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A Nos. 1904, 1905 & 1906/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Mithila & Mithila Enterprises, Assessing Officer, C-22, New Krishna Park, बनाम Ward : 49 (4), Vikas Puri, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 018. Pan No. Aasfm1647F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Pundir, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: 24/02/2022
Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…I.T.A.Nos. 1904 TO 1906/Del/2021 due date of filing of Income Tax return. Reliance was placed on the following decisions:- (a) Pr. CIT Vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. (ITA. 983/2018 dated 10.09.2018) (Delhi HC); (b) CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi HC); (c) ACIT Vs. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (2012) 20 taxmann.com 334 (Del.); (d) Universal Precision Screws Vs. ACIT (2016) 69 taxmann.com 368 (Delhi Trib.); (e) CIT Vs. Kichha Sugar Co. Ltd. (2013) 356 ITR 351 (Uttarakhand); (f) CIT Vs. Nuchem Ltd. (2015) 59 taxmann.com 455 (P & H); (g) CIT Vs. ANZ Information Technology (P.) Ltd. (2…

Mithila and Mithila Enterprise, New Delhi vs. Ward- 49(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 1905/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, A N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia(Through Video Conferencing) आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A Nos. 1904, 1905 & 1906/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Mithila & Mithila Enterprises, Assessing Officer, C-22, New Krishna Park, बनाम Ward : 49 (4), Vikas Puri, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 018. Pan No. Aasfm1647F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Pundir, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: 24/02/2022
Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…I.T.A.Nos. 1904 TO 1906/Del/2021 due date of filing of Income Tax return. Reliance was placed on the following decisions:- (a) Pr. CIT Vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. (ITA. 983/2018 dated 10.09.2018) (Delhi HC); (b) CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi HC); (c) ACIT Vs. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (2012) 20 taxmann.com 334 (Del.); (d) Universal Precision Screws Vs. ACIT (2016) 69 taxmann.com 368 (Delhi Trib.); (e) CIT Vs. Kichha Sugar Co. Ltd. (2013) 356 ITR 351 (Uttarakhand); (f) CIT Vs. Nuchem Ltd. (2015) 59 taxmann.com 455 (P & H); (g) CIT Vs. ANZ Information Technology (P.) Ltd. (2…

Mithila and Mithila Enterprise, Delhi vs. Ward 49(4) Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 1904/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, A N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia(Through Video Conferencing) आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A Nos. 1904, 1905 & 1906/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Mithila & Mithila Enterprises, Assessing Officer, C-22, New Krishna Park, बनाम Ward : 49 (4), Vikas Puri, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 018. Pan No. Aasfm1647F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Pundir, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: 24/02/2022
Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…I.T.A.Nos. 1904 TO 1906/Del/2021 due date of filing of Income Tax return. Reliance was placed on the following decisions:- (a) Pr. CIT Vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. (ITA. 983/2018 dated 10.09.2018) (Delhi HC); (b) CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi HC); (c) ACIT Vs. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (2012) 20 taxmann.com 334 (Del.); (d) Universal Precision Screws Vs. ACIT (2016) 69 taxmann.com 368 (Delhi Trib.); (e) CIT Vs. Kichha Sugar Co. Ltd. (2013) 356 ITR 351 (Uttarakhand); (f) CIT Vs. Nuchem Ltd. (2015) 59 taxmann.com 455 (P & H); (g) CIT Vs. ANZ Information Technology (P.) Ltd. (2…

Trulymadly Matchmakers Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-25(4), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1501/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 195

…order dated 31 May 2021. 5.3 The Hon'ble SMC Bench of Delhi Tribunal, in the case of Azamgarh Steel & Power (supra), while deciding the issue in favor of the assessee relied on the judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 508 (Del.), and Pr. CIT v. Pro Interactive Service (India) (P.) Ltd. ITA No. 983/2018. 5.4 The SMC Bench of Delhi Tribunal also held that it is settled law that when two judgments are available giving different views then the judgment which is in favour of the assessee shall apply as held in case of Vegetable Products Ltd. 82 ITR 192 by the Hon'ble S…

Sansun Staffing Solutions Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 22(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 1806/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C. (Through Video Conferencing) आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No.1806/Del/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sansun Staffing Solutions Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., बनाम B–102/2, East Of Kailash, Ward : 22 (3), Vs. South Delhi, New Delhi – 110 065. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaics2876B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate; &
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154

…(Appeals) contending that employees’ contribution to ESI and EPF filed before the due date for filing the return of income are allowable as deduction. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del.) and the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s. Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2014) [(3) TMI 386] (Kar). However, the ld. CIT (Appeals) placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. (2019) 410 ITR 417 (Del.) sustained the disallowance made by the Centraliz…

M/S Ind Synergy Limited, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 1(2), Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 312/BIL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 312/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ind Synergy Limited Gokul Puram, Kachna Road, Khamardih, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaaci7072D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Mahawar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shravankumar Meena, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shravankumar Meena, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36(1)(va)

…rder of the tribunal qua the aforesaid aspect dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. Also, we find that a similar view had been arrived at by various Hon’ble High Courts, as under :- 8 M/s. Ind Synergy Limited Vs. DCIT a. CIT Vs. Amil Ltd reported (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi High Court) b. CIT Vs. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P) Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 167 (P&H) c. Bihar State Warehousing Corporation Ltd.Vs. CIT 386 ITR 410 (Patna) d. Sagun Foundary Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT 145 DTR 265 (All) e. CIT Vs. Mark Auto Industries (2008) 358 ITR 43 (P&H) f. CIt Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd (2014) 363 ITR 307 (Raj) g. EssaeTeraok…

M/S. Vajdi Educational Society, Indore vs. The CPC, Banglore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 250/IND/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Deshpandey,CAFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr. D.R
Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 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…

Sandhva Dihge, Dewas vs. DCIT CPC Bengaluru, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 244/IND/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Deshpandey, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(7)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…

M/S Kohinoor Elastics P Ltd, Indore vs. DCIT 2(1), Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 242/IND/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 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…

Dwark Prasad Pathk, Indore vs. The ITO 5 (2) Indore, Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 241/IND/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh Thakur, A.RFor 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…

Catayser Eduventures (India)P Ltd, Indore vs. The DCIT2(1) Indore, Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 240/IND/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Mar 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Maheshwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 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…

Catayser Eduventures (India)P Ltd, Indore vs. The DCIT2(1) Indore, Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 239/IND/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Maheshwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234BSection 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…

Komal Kumar Jain, Indore vs. DCIT, CPC Bangalore, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 223/IND/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri G.B. Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 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…

M/S Bhaskar Prakashan Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal vs. The CIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 215/IND/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Deshpandey, CAFor 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…

Shiv Shakti Prakashan P Ltd, Bhopal vs. CPC Banglore, Banglore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 210/IND/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Deshpandey, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 36Section 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…

M/S Candor Textiles P Ltd, Indore vs. DCIT 2(1), Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 189/IND/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Supriya Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 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…

Shri Ghanshyamdas Pahuja, Indore vs. ACIT 4(1), Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 186/IND/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goyal &For 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…

M/S. Prestige Fabricators Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The ACIT 4(1), Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 184/IND/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goyal &For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 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. further relied upon the following decisions wherein it is held that in case of debatable issues, the assessee will get the benefit of the decisions which are in the favour of assessee: * Bajaj Auto Finance Limited vs. CIT (2018), 93 Taxmann.com 63 (Bom.HC) * CIT vs. Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited (2015) 232 Taxmann 349…

Shri Vijendra Kumar Tiwari, Indore vs. The CIT NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 175/IND/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ram Maurya, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 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 assessee 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…