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.

M/Squixotic Healthcare, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CPC/ACIT, Circle-1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Return.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…is issue is dealt by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. M/s Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 wherein the issue is decided in favour of the revenue, without considering the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd.(2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del.). But the Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court In case of Pr, CU vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 983/2018 pronounced on 10.09.2018 wherein the Hon'ble High Court decided the issue in favour of the assessee relying upon the judgment of AIMIL Ltd. (supra). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that…

Manmeet Alloys Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CPC//DCIT-Circle-V(1), Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 318/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Mar 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Ms. Vidisha Vinay, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 250(6)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…is issue is dealt by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. M/s Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 wherein the issue is decided in favour of the revenue, without considering the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd.(2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del.). But the Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court In case of Pr, CU vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 983/2018 pronounced on 10.09.2018 wherein the Hon'ble High Court decided the issue in favour of the assessee relying upon the judgment of AIMIL Ltd. (supra). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that…

Dimond Auto Industries, Ghaziabad vs. Circlr 2(1)(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1919/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M/S. Diamond Auto Industries, Vs Dcit, C/O B.K. Kapur & Co., Chartered Cpc, Bengaluru. Accountants, 17, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad. Pan-Aabfd6698J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Madhav Kapur, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.03.2022 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(23)(x)Section 234A

…of PCIT vs Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.983/2018 [Del.] order dated 10.09.2018, where it is held 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 expenditure only when payment is actually made. We do not think that the legislative intent and objective is to treat belated payment of…

In-Style Embroideries Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1898/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2019-20] In-Style Embroideries Pvt. Ltd., Vs Adit, A-23, Phase-I, Okhla Industrial Cpc, Bengaluru. Area, Delhi. Pan-Aaaci5830R Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.03.2022 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(23)(x)Section 43B

…of PCIT vs Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.983/2018 [Del.] order dated 10.09.2018, where it is held 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 expenditure only when payment is actually made. We do not think that the legislative intent and objective is to treat belated payment of…

Micro Machines, Haryana vs. Circle 1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1895/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Micro Machines, Plot No. 103, Vs Dcit, Sector-06, Faridabad. Cpc, Bengaluru. Pan-Aakfm0507G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.03.2022 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year

Section 143(1)Section 2(23)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…of PCIT vs Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.983/2018 [Del.] order dated 10.09.2018, where it is held 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 expenditure only when payment is actually made. We do not think that the legislative intent and objective is to treat belated payment of…

Lion Workforce Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, CPC, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1186/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor & Shri N. K. Choudhrylion Workforce Solutions Vs. Dcit, Cpc, India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi C/O. Kapilgoel, Adv, F- 26/124, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi-110085 Pan: Aabcl 6633J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. KapilGoel, AdvFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…entitled to claim deduction of employee’s share of ESI & PF u/s.43B of the Act, if the same has been deposited prior to the filing of return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act. 5.5. The jurisdictional High Court as well, in the case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd {(2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del)} affirmed the action of the deleting the addition relating to employees’ ITAT in contribution deposited before the due date of filing of return, in respect of Provident Fund and ESI made by the Assessing Officer under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5.6. Again the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs., Pro Interac…

DCIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi vs. G4S Facility Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2581/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Ishtiyaque Ahmad, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ver, this circular states that it does not apply to claim of deduction relating to employee's contribution to welfare funds which are governed by section 36(1)(va). (viii) However, the Honble Delhi High Court in its judgment in the case of CIT vs AIMIL Ltd. (321 ITR 508) while examining this issue in 2010 had held that no disallowance could be made in view of the provisions of section 43B, as amended by Finance Act, 2003.' Respectfully following the decision by the jurisdictional High Court, the deposit of employee's contribution of PF and ESI of Rs.3,57,13,697/- by the appellant .beyond the due date u/s 36(l)(…

Bhartiya International Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 768/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanwaljit Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…. Ltd. vide order dated 10.09.2018 in ITA No.983/2018. The extract of the judgment is I.T.A. No.768/DEL/2021 3 reproduced as under: “In view of the judgment of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax versus Aimil Limited, (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del) the issue is covered against the Revenue and, therefore, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The legislative intent was /is to ensure that the amount paid is allowed as an expenditure only when payment is actually made. We do not think that the legislative intent and objective is to treat belated payment…

Sharda Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd., Agra vs. Jurisdictional Officer, Circle-2(1)(1), Agra

In the result all the appeals filed by the

ITA 62/AGR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Sharda Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jo Circle-2(1)(1), 17, Tundla Road, Nunhai Agrau.P. Agrau.P. Pan: Aaecs1396L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Prem Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jo Dcit/Acit, Circle-1(1) Kanwal Complex, B-32, A.G. Office Gwalior M.P. Road, Gwalior M.P. 474001 Pan: Aabcp2035Q (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Karam Udyog Vs. Jo Circle - 1(1)(1) 9, Gailana Road Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Abbfk0897L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

…wards their contributions, which were made beyond such stipulated period, obviously the assessee was not entitled to claim the deduction from its returns. We have perused the order of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional 6. High Court in the case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. 321 ITR 508 vide order dated 23.12.2009 held that if the employees' contributionis not deposited by the due date prescribed under ITA No. 114/Agra/2021 & Others (58) 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…

Karam Udhog, Agra vs. J.A.O., Dy. CIT.., Circle-1(1)(1), Agra

In the result all the appeals filed by the

ITA 112/AGR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Sharda Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jo Circle-2(1)(1), 17, Tundla Road, Nunhai Agrau.P. Agrau.P. Pan: Aaecs1396L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Prem Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jo Dcit/Acit, Circle-1(1) Kanwal Complex, B-32, A.G. Office Gwalior M.P. Road, Gwalior M.P. 474001 Pan: Aabcp2035Q (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Karam Udyog Vs. Jo Circle - 1(1)(1) 9, Gailana Road Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Abbfk0897L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

…wards their contributions, which were made beyond such stipulated period, obviously the assessee was not entitled to claim the deduction from its returns. We have perused the order of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional 6. High Court in the case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. 321 ITR 508 vide order dated 23.12.2009 held that if the employees' contributionis not deposited by the due date prescribed under ITA No. 114/Agra/2021 & Others (58) 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…

Prem Motors Private Limited, Gwalior vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, DCIT/ACIT, Circle1(1), Gwalior

In the result all the appeals filed by the

ITA 100/AGR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Sharda Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jo Circle-2(1)(1), 17, Tundla Road, Nunhai Agrau.P. Agrau.P. Pan: Aaecs1396L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Prem Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jo Dcit/Acit, Circle-1(1) Kanwal Complex, B-32, A.G. Office Gwalior M.P. Road, Gwalior M.P. 474001 Pan: Aabcp2035Q (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Karam Udyog Vs. Jo Circle - 1(1)(1) 9, Gailana Road Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Abbfk0897L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

…wards their contributions, which were made beyond such stipulated period, obviously the assessee was not entitled to claim the deduction from its returns. We have perused the order of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional 6. High Court in the case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. 321 ITR 508 vide order dated 23.12.2009 held that if the employees' contributionis not deposited by the due date prescribed under ITA No. 114/Agra/2021 & Others (58) 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…

Chintoo Creations, Delhi vs. Circle-50(1), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1772/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Due Date Of Filling Of Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of It Act & Therefore Are Allowable Under Law As Per Decision Of Jurisdictional Delhi High Court. (Tax Effect: Rs.7,57,156/-) 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & Position On Law, The Education Cess & The Secondary & Higher Education Cess Amounting To Rs.1,27,329/- Is A Disallowable Expenditure U/S 40(A)(Ii) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. (Tax Effect: Rs.44,565/-) The Above Ground Is An Additional Ground. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Delete, Modify/Amend The Above Grounds Of Appeal With The Permission Of The Hon’Ble Appellate Authority.

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 149(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

…in favour of Revenue; more closely. If the view in favour of the assessee, that the aforesaid amendments are prospective, is accepted; then the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, which is the jurisdictional High Court, in the cases of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. 321 ITR 508 (Delhi); and CIT vs. P.M. Electronics Ltd. 313 ITR 161 (Delhi) continue to hold good for Assessment Year 2018-19, to which this appeal pertains. Accordingly, the view taken by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in these cases, that delayed payments of employees contribution of provident fund and ESI [payment made after stipulated dates prescribed unde…

Mohammed Darus Salam, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-36(4), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1549/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Mohammed Darus Salam, Vs Ito, 15/5A, Old Chandrawal, Civil Lines, Ward-36(4), New Delhi-110054. Delhi Pan-Afgpd5866E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manu K.Giri, Advocate & Ms. Sonia Dudeja, Advocate Respondent By Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.03.2022 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2019-

Section 143(1)Section 2(23)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…in the case of PCIT vs Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt.Ltd. in ITA No.983/2018 [Del.] order dated 10.09.2018 held 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…

Murti Supply Chain Solutions Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Karnataka

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1219/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shrit.S. Kapoor & Shri N. K. Choudhrymurti Supply Chain Vs. Dcit, Cpc Bangalore Solutions Private Limited Pole No. 26, Village Mundka West Delhi-110041 Pan: Aajcm7010N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Gupta AdvFor Respondent: Ms. ShwetaYadav Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…entitled to claim deduction of employee’s share of ESI & PF u/s.43B of the Act, if the same has been deposited prior to the filing of return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act. 5.5. The jurisdictional High Court as well, in the case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd {(2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del)} affirmed the action of the deleting the addition relating to employees’ ITAT in contribution deposited before the due date of filing of return, in respect of Provident Fund and ESI made by the Assessing Officer under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5.6. Again the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs., Pro Interac…

M/S Global Polymers, Agra vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Circle-1(1)(1), Agra

In the result all the appeals filed by the

ITA 93/AGR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Krishna Kanha Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Circle – 2(1)(2) Pushpanjali Palace Delhi Gate Sanjay Place, Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Aacck7160L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Banmoreelecticals Pvt Ltd Vs. Dcit Behind Park Hotel, Moti Mahal, Road City Centre Gwalior M.P. Gwalior M.P. Pan: Aabcb4242M (Respondent) (Appellant)

…wards their contributions, which were made beyond such stipulated period, obviously the assessee was not entitled to claim the deduction from its returns. 6. 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' contributionis not deposited by the due date prescribed under ITA No. 53 /Agra/2021 & Others (58) 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…

M/S Radish Technologies, Aligarh vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Circle-4(1)(1), Aligarh

In the result all the appeals filed by the

ITA 92/AGR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Krishna Kanha Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Circle – 2(1)(2) Pushpanjali Palace Delhi Gate Sanjay Place, Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Aacck7160L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Banmoreelecticals Pvt Ltd Vs. Dcit Behind Park Hotel, Moti Mahal, Road City Centre Gwalior M.P. Gwalior M.P. Pan: Aabcb4242M (Respondent) (Appellant)

…wards their contributions, which were made beyond such stipulated period, obviously the assessee was not entitled to claim the deduction from its returns. 6. 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' contributionis not deposited by the due date prescribed under ITA No. 53 /Agra/2021 & Others (58) 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…

Amar Shoe & Leather Wears, Agra vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Circle-1(1)(1), Agra

In the result all the appeals filed by the

ITA 91/AGR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Krishna Kanha Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Circle – 2(1)(2) Pushpanjali Palace Delhi Gate Sanjay Place, Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Aacck7160L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Banmoreelecticals Pvt Ltd Vs. Dcit Behind Park Hotel, Moti Mahal, Road City Centre Gwalior M.P. Gwalior M.P. Pan: Aabcb4242M (Respondent) (Appellant)

…wards their contributions, which were made beyond such stipulated period, obviously the assessee was not entitled to claim the deduction from its returns. 6. 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' contributionis not deposited by the due date prescribed under ITA No. 53 /Agra/2021 & Others (58) 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…

R N Bajaj Overseas, Agra vs. DCIT, CPC Bengaluru, Agra

In the result all the appeals filed by the

ITA 89/AGR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Krishna Kanha Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Circle – 2(1)(2) Pushpanjali Palace Delhi Gate Sanjay Place, Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Aacck7160L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Banmoreelecticals Pvt Ltd Vs. Dcit Behind Park Hotel, Moti Mahal, Road City Centre Gwalior M.P. Gwalior M.P. Pan: Aabcb4242M (Respondent) (Appellant)

…wards their contributions, which were made beyond such stipulated period, obviously the assessee was not entitled to claim the deduction from its returns. 6. 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' contributionis not deposited by the due date prescribed under ITA No. 53 /Agra/2021 & Others (58) 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…

Rajeer Singh, Agra vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi

In the result all the appeals filed by the

ITA 87/AGR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Krishna Kanha Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Circle – 2(1)(2) Pushpanjali Palace Delhi Gate Sanjay Place, Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Aacck7160L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Banmoreelecticals Pvt Ltd Vs. Dcit Behind Park Hotel, Moti Mahal, Road City Centre Gwalior M.P. Gwalior M.P. Pan: Aabcb4242M (Respondent) (Appellant)

…wards their contributions, which were made beyond such stipulated period, obviously the assessee was not entitled to claim the deduction from its returns. 6. 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' contributionis not deposited by the due date prescribed under ITA No. 53 /Agra/2021 & Others (58) 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…

Danvir Singh, Agra vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi

In the result all the appeals filed by the

ITA 86/AGR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Krishna Kanha Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Circle – 2(1)(2) Pushpanjali Palace Delhi Gate Sanjay Place, Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Aacck7160L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Banmoreelecticals Pvt Ltd Vs. Dcit Behind Park Hotel, Moti Mahal, Road City Centre Gwalior M.P. Gwalior M.P. Pan: Aabcb4242M (Respondent) (Appellant)

…wards their contributions, which were made beyond such stipulated period, obviously the assessee was not entitled to claim the deduction from its returns. 6. 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' contributionis not deposited by the due date prescribed under ITA No. 53 /Agra/2021 & Others (58) 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…