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 367,282 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.

Rakesh Janghu, New Delhi vs. Circle-33(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1914/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Ms. Swati Talwar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, Sr.D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…Ltd. vide order dated I.T.A. No.1914/DEL/2021 3 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…

Rishi Pal Ashish Kumar Contractor, Shamli vs. Itd, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1379/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, Sr.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 reproduced as under: I.T.A. No.1379/DEL/2021 3 “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…

Vigilant Security Placement & Detective Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1880/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, Sr.D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…Ltd. vide order dated I.T.A. No.1880/DEL/2020 3 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…

Cogwheel Facility Management Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1838/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2018-19 Cogwheel Facility Management Pvt. Vs Dcit, Ltd., J-128/1, 2Nd Floor, Cpc, Mohammadpur Village, Bangalore. Near Bhikaji Cama Place, Rk Puram, New Delhi. Pan: Aagcc1517K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : .02.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27Th August, 2020 Of The Cit(A)-2, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. That The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Order Of The Ao, Passed Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.23,55,432/- Made By Ao By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 3. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Ignoring The Well- Established Judicial Pronouncements Including That Of The Jurisdictional High Court. 4. That The Impugned Appellate Order Is Arbitrary, Illegal, Bad In Law & The Violation Of Rudimentary Principle Of Contemporary Jurisprudence. 5. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter, Vary And/Or Withdraw Any Or All The Above Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Ruchesh Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…various sections pertaining to sections 43B, scope of 143(l)(a), 36(l)(va) etc., alongwith the following judicial decisions :- i) CIT vs. Kichha Sugar Company Ltd. (Uttarakhand) ii) CIT vs. Vinay Cement Ltd., 213 CTR 268 (SC) iii) CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. & Anrs., 321 ITR 508 iv) CIT vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd., 319 ITR 306 2 4.1 The submissions made by the appellant needs to be evaluated in the context of legal provisions laid down in the Act. The same are enumerated hereunder:- 4.1.1 The legal provision > Section 36(1)(va) deals with deduction in respect of the sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to…

Kanishka Basu Mallik, Kolkata vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 27/KOL/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar] I.T.A. No. 27/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2019-20 Kanishka Basu Mallik Vs. Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru (Pan: Bwapm2770E) Appellant Respondent

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…

Genesis Intellectuals Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 26/KOL/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar] I.T.A. No. 26/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2019-20 Genesis Intellectuals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Adit, Cpc (Pan: Aagcg2638H) Appellant Respondent

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…

Maithan Alloys Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 560/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

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…

Maithan Alloys Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 559/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

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…

ADIT Infratel Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward - 1(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1658/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(1)

…1 Adit Infratel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC-2” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2018-19 Adit Infratel Private Limited, Vs Income-tax Officer, A-45/27, DLF City Phase-I, Ward-1(1), New Delhi. Gurgaon, Haryana-122002. PAN- AABCL6812B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Sh. Sanjay Nath, CA Respondent by Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of hearing 19.01.2022 Date of pronouncement 11.02.2022 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, N…

Franch Express Courier Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. The CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 523/CHNY/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.523/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Franch Express Courier Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Director Of No. 199, Hariyan Street, C-Pallavaram, Vs. Income Tax, Cpc, Chennai 600 043. Bengaluru 560 500. [Pan:Aadcf3624P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Vandana Vyas, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 31.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 28.09.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2019-20 On 30.10.2019 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹.39,17,200/-. The Cpc, Bengaluru Has Completed The 2

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Vyas, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

…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…

Kasthuri Medias Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Additional Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 752/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

…alueMomentum Software Services Private Limited vs. DCIT I.T.A. No. 2 197/HYD/20 17 [Assessment Year: 2013-14] dated 19.05.2021; 7. Mohan Ram Chaudhary vs. ITO ITA No. 51&54- 55/Jodh/2021 [Assessment Year: 2018-19] dated 28.09.2021; 8. CIT v. Aimil Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 508 9. CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 326 10. CIT vs. Merchem Ltd. 378 ITR 443 (Kerala)) 11. Sagun Foundry (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2017] 291 CTR 557 (Allahabad) 12. Bata India Ltd. vs. DCIT [2020] 180 lTD 464 (Kolkata - Trib.) 13. DCIT vs. Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd. [2016] 160 lTD 432 (Visakhapatnam - Trib.) 14. Nuzivedu…

C Krishniah Chetty & Sons Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 748/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

…Software Services Private Limited vs. DCIT I.T.A. No. 2 197/HYD/20 17 [Assessment Year: 2013-14] dated 19.05.2021; 7. Mohan Ram Chaudhary vs. ITO ITA No. 51&54- 55/Jodh/2021 [Assessment Year: 2018-19] dated 28.09.2021; Page 7 of 8 8. CIT v. Aimil Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 508 9. CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 326 10. CIT vs. Merchem Ltd. 378 ITR 443 (Kerala)) 11. Sagun Foundry (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2017] 291 CTR 557 (Allahabad) 12. Bata India Ltd. vs. DCIT [2020] 180 lTD 464 (Kolkata - Trib.) 13. DCIT vs. Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd. [2016] 160 lTD 432 (Visakhapatnam - Trib.) 14. Nuzivedu…

S & G Lifestyles, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 745/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar, V., ARFor Respondent: Shri Sri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…alueMomentum Software Services Private Limited vs. DCIT I.T.A. No. 2 197/HYD/20 17 [Assessment Year: 2013-14] dated 19.05.2021; 7. Mohan Ram Chaudhary vs. ITO ITA No. 51&54- 55/Jodh/2021 [Assessment Year: 2018-19] dated 28.09.2021; 8. CIT v. Aimil Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 508 9. CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 326 10. CIT vs. Merchem Ltd. 378 ITR 443 (Kerala)) ITA No.744 & 745/Bang/2021 Page 8 of 9 11. Sagun Foundry (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2017] 291 CTR 557 (Allahabad) 12. Bata India Ltd. vs. DCIT [2020] 180 lTD 464 (Kolkata - Trib.) 13. DCIT vs. Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd. [2016] 160 lTD…

S & G Lifestyles, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 744/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar, V., ARFor Respondent: Shri Sri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…alueMomentum Software Services Private Limited vs. DCIT I.T.A. No. 2 197/HYD/20 17 [Assessment Year: 2013-14] dated 19.05.2021; 7. Mohan Ram Chaudhary vs. ITO ITA No. 51&54- 55/Jodh/2021 [Assessment Year: 2018-19] dated 28.09.2021; 8. CIT v. Aimil Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 508 9. CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 326 10. CIT vs. Merchem Ltd. 378 ITR 443 (Kerala)) ITA No.744 & 745/Bang/2021 Page 8 of 9 11. Sagun Foundry (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2017] 291 CTR 557 (Allahabad) 12. Bata India Ltd. vs. DCIT [2020] 180 lTD 464 (Kolkata - Trib.) 13. DCIT vs. Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd. [2016] 160 lTD…

Radford Global Limited, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 709/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Radford Global Ltd., Vs Adit, Office No.704, Wellington Business Cpc, Park 1, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri Bangalore. East, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400059. Pan-Aabcm5771E Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 06.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.02.2022

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…covered in favour of the assessee. He placed reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of PCIT vs Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt.Ltd. in ITA No.983/2018 [Del.] order dated 10.09.2018 and in the case of CIT vs AIMIL Ltd. 321 ITR 508 and stated that that these binding precedents have been followed by the various Benches of the Tribunal. 8. Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR vehemently opposed these submissions and submitted that law is clear in this respect and he relied upon the decision of Ld.CIT(A). He further relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs…

Falck India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 9(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed ex-parte

ITA 7693/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…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…

Darks Security Consultant Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 12(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 14/KOL/2022[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar] I.T.A. No. 14/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Darks Security Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata (Pan: Aabcd 5445 J) Appellant Respondent

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…

Shri Dutt India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. AO, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 610/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Rajesh Kumar] I.T.A. No. 610/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19 Shri Dutt India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.O., Cpc, Bengaluru (Pan: Aarcs9172 P) Appellant Respondent

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…

Surender Kumar Arora, New Dellhi vs. Ward 29(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1828/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Amit Shukla

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Surender Kumar Arora Vs. Ward – 29(3) 232/3, Govind Puri, New Delhi New Delhi, Delhi-19 PAN : ADTPA 7099 P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Mayank Gupta, Adv. Revenue by Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 03.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 09.02.2022 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24.09.2021 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi…

Orissa Sponge Iron vs. Ast.Comnr.I.Tax

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

ITA/90/2009HC Orissa07 Feb 2022

Bench: And Within The Due Date Of Filing Of Return U/S. 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act?”

Section 139(1)

…Page 1 of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ITA No. 90 of 2009 M/s Orissa Sponge Iron & Steel Ltd. …. Appellant Mr.B.Panda, Advocate -versus- The Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Sambalpur & another …. Respondents Mr. S.S.Mohapatra, Senior Standing Counsel, for the Income Tax Department CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE R.K.PATTNAIK ORDER…