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 367,181 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.

Neo Gallant Security Services Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 461/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey]

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…

East India Security Service, Kolkata vs. CPC, Banglore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 455/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey]

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…

East India Security Service Service, Kolkata vs. CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 454/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey]

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…

Machine Tools India Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 407/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey]

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…

Machine Tools India Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 406/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey]

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…

Machine Tools India Ltd, Kolkata vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Cir. 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 405/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey]

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…

Kingfisher Products Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 327/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 139(1)Section 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…

Kingfisher Products Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 326/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 139(1)Section 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…

Kingfisher Products Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 325/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 139(1)Section 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…

Bharat Security Agency, Kolkata vs. Assessing Officer, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 299/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey]

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: A.Ys 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s.Bharat Security Agency “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 prescrib…

Bharat Security Agency, Kolkata vs. Assessing Officer, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 298/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey]

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: A.Ys 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s.Bharat Security Agency “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 prescrib…

Jjr Spin Textiles LLP, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 364/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

Section 139(1)Section 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…

Bhawarlal Alok Kumar, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 34, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 291/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

Section 139(1)Section 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…

Digicall Teleservices Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6267/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2006-07] Digicall Teleservices Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit (Formerly Page Point Services India Central Circle-25 Pvt. Ltd.) D-7, Dhawandeep New Delhi Apartment, 6, Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi Pan-Aabcp794Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 09.12.2021

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(24)Section 36Section 36(1)(Va)

…hat since in this case the payments towards Provident Fund and ESI have been deposited well before the date of filing of return of income under Section 139(1), therefore relying on the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs AIMIL Limited (321 ITR 508) and the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Vinay Cements Ltd. (213 CTR 268), the addition made by the AO deserves to be deleted.” 9. The Ld.CIT(A) has not given any reason as to how the facts are different the present year for taking different view on the issue. Moreover, the issue is squarely covered in favour…

Amar Samanata, Bishnupur vs. CPC, Bangalore, ITO, Wad-26(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 317/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

Section 139(1)Section 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…

Adyar Ananda Bhavan Sweets India P Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 403/CHNY/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 402 & 403/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/S. Adyar Ananda Bhavan Vs The Acit, Sweets India P Ltd., Central Cirlce - 3(4), No.9, Shastri Nagar, Chennai – 34. M.G. Road, Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 020. Pan: Aaica 3787F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओ रसे/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate & Shri Arjunraj, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Durgesh Sumrott, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.12.2021

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Durgesh Sumrott, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…on 43B and amendment to first proviso by Finance Act, 2003 are curative in nature and are effective retrospectively, i.e., with effect from 1.4.1988 i.e., the date of insertion of first proviso. The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V. Amil Ltd. reported in 321 ITR 508 held that if the assessee had deposited employee's contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI after due date as prescribed under the relevant Act, but before the due date of filing of return under the Income Tax Act, no 43B as amended by Finance Act, 2003. 6. In the present case, the assessee had remitted the employees contribution beyond the du…

Adyar Ananda Bhavan Sweets India P Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 402/CHNY/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 402 & 403/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/S. Adyar Ananda Bhavan Vs The Acit, Sweets India P Ltd., Central Cirlce - 3(4), No.9, Shastri Nagar, Chennai – 34. M.G. Road, Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 020. Pan: Aaica 3787F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओ रसे/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate & Shri Arjunraj, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Durgesh Sumrott, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.12.2021

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Durgesh Sumrott, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…on 43B and amendment to first proviso by Finance Act, 2003 are curative in nature and are effective retrospectively, i.e., with effect from 1.4.1988 i.e., the date of insertion of first proviso. The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V. Amil Ltd. reported in 321 ITR 508 held that if the assessee had deposited employee's contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI after due date as prescribed under the relevant Act, but before the due date of filing of return under the Income Tax Act, no 43B as amended by Finance Act, 2003. 6. In the present case, the assessee had remitted the employees contribution beyond the du…

Laurels (India) Impex (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ADIT, Bengluru

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 938/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Laurels (India) Impex (P) Ltd. Vs Adit Rra Taxindia D-28, South Extension, Bengaluru, Part-1, New Delhi Karnataka Aaacs9311B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shrey Jain, Adv Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 08.12.2021

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

…he case of PCIT vs Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.983/2018 [Del.] vide 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…

Sarajit Bhattacharyya, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-25(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 443/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

Section 139(1)Section 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…

Manipur Motors, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 32, Kolkata(As Per Pin Code Jurisdiction) Earlier ACIT, Circle-9, Imphal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 436/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

Section 139(1)Section 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…