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.

Mohan Motor Business Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. II(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 486/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 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…

M/S H.S.Mercantile Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 9(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 413/KOL/2021[2019-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2021AY 2019-10

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…

Singhania & Sons (P) Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 10(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 412/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble Vice-, Kz) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Singhania & Sons Pvt. Ltd…………...............................................................………………….............Appellant 3D, Duckback House 41, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aadcs 6078 A] Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Nfac...............................................………..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Katarua, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

Section 14ASection 250

…binding considered the earlier Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court which was binding 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) on a Division Bench in the case of CIT vs. Aimil Ltd. & Ors. Reported in 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) 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: wherein the head notes reads as under: “Late deposit of PF and ESI “Late deposit of PF and ESI - During the assessm…

Balaji Motors, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 409/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2021AY 2017-18

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…

D.P.Security & Allied Service, Kolkata vs. E-Assessment, Centralized Procesing Center, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 271/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 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…

Harenath Singh, Howrah vs. DCIT, CPC, Income Tax Department, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 219/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 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…

Shioji Singh HUF, Howrah vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 218/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 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…

Aruna Devi, Muzaffarnagar vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5412/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Padampani Bora, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, PRESIDENT AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Aruna Devi, vs. DCIT, Circle 1, C/o O.P. Sapra & Associates, Muzaffarnagar. Friends Colony, New Delhi. PAN : ABWPD9524H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Sanjeev Sapra, Adv. Respondent by: Sh. Padampani Bora, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 10.11.2021 Date of order : 30.11.2021 ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M. Aggrieved by the order dated 20.06.2018 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Muzaffarnagar (“Ld. CIT(A)”)…

Pachouli Wellness Clinic LLP, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 23(3), New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 999/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…merous other orders of Hon’ble High Court, and ITAT; such as, the following: Page 4 of 13 ITA Nos.- 999, 1000 and 1011/Del/2021 Global Groupware Solution Ltd. and others 1. Order dated 10.09.2018 vide ITA No. 983/2018 in the case of ITO vs Aimil Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) 2. CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 326 3. CIT vs. Merchem Ltd. 378 ITR 443 (Kerala) 4. Sagun Foundry (P.). vs. CIT[2017] 291 CTR 557 (Allahabad) 5. CIT vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. [2019] 103 taxmann.com 295/410 ITR 417 (Delhi) 6. Order dated 01.07.2021 in the case of Raodways Private Limited [TS-510- ITAT-2021 (HYD)], ITAT, Hydera…

Naveen Kumar, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Gurgaon

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1011/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…merous other orders of Hon’ble High Court, and ITAT; such as, the following: Page 4 of 13 ITA Nos.- 999, 1000 and 1011/Del/2021 Global Groupware Solution Ltd. and others 1. Order dated 10.09.2018 vide ITA No. 983/2018 in the case of ITO vs Aimil Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) 2. CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 326 3. CIT vs. Merchem Ltd. 378 ITR 443 (Kerala) 4. Sagun Foundry (P.). vs. CIT[2017] 291 CTR 557 (Allahabad) 5. CIT vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. [2019] 103 taxmann.com 295/410 ITR 417 (Delhi) 6. Order dated 01.07.2021 in the case of Raodways Private Limited [TS-510- ITAT-2021 (HYD)], ITAT, Hydera…

Global Groupware Solutions Limited, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(1), New Delhi, C. R. Building, I. P. Estate, New Delhi-110002

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1000/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…merous other orders of Hon’ble High Court, and ITAT; such as, the following: Page 4 of 13 ITA Nos.- 999, 1000 and 1011/Del/2021 Global Groupware Solution Ltd. and others 1. Order dated 10.09.2018 vide ITA No. 983/2018 in the case of ITO vs Aimil Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) 2. CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 326 3. CIT vs. Merchem Ltd. 378 ITR 443 (Kerala) 4. Sagun Foundry (P.). vs. CIT[2017] 291 CTR 557 (Allahabad) 5. CIT vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. [2019] 103 taxmann.com 295/410 ITR 417 (Delhi) 6. Order dated 01.07.2021 in the case of Raodways Private Limited [TS-510- ITAT-2021 (HYD)], ITAT, Hydera…

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi vs. Peregrine Guarding Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 5968/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2014-15 Addl. Cit, Vs Peregrine Guarding Pvt.Ltd., Special Range-7, Rz-1B, Kapashera Crossing, New Delhi. New Delhi-110037. Pan-Aadcp2498P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. I P S Bindra, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. Ajay Mangotia, Adv. Date Of Hearing 20.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 24.11.2021

Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(X)Section 37(1)

…lhi). He submitted that Ld.CIT(A) therefore, was not justified in deleting the addition. 7. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the order of Ld.CIT(A) and submitted that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs AIMIL Ltd. 321 ITR 508 and also in the case of PCIT vs Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt.Ltd. in ITA No.983/2018 [Del.] order dated 10.09.2018 submitted that in view of the binding precedents, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition. The Ld.CIT(A) has therefore, rightly deleted the same. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused th…

Uv Garments (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1955/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Uv Garments (P.) Ltd., Vs Dcit, C/O-Ssar & Associates, Ca, 4852/24, Cpc, Ff, Ansari Road, Near Sanjivan Hospital, Bengaluru. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aaacu8398Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sachin Jain, Ca Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 23.11.2021

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

…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 [Assessment Year : 2018-19] that these binding precedents have been followed by the various Benches of the Tribunal. 7. 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 Hig…

Karam Vir Yadav, Alwar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre

ITA 96/JPR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 96/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Karam Vir Yadav Cuke Cit(A), Vs. M/S Shashank Engg. Works, Nfac. 191, M.I.A., Alwar-301001. Pan No.: Aabpy 1852 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri J.P. Garg (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 08/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 28/06/2021 For The A.Y. 2019-20. Following Ground Has Been Taken By The Assessee: “ On The Facts Of The Case & As Per Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Addition Made By The Assessing Officer In The Returned Income While Processing Of Income Tax Return, U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act Amounting Rs. 1,14,148/- For Delay In Deposit Of Employees Contribution To Pf & Esi On Due Date Of The Respective Act Which Is Unjustified & Unlawful As It Was Deposited Before The Due Date Of Filing It Return U/S 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. This Was Also Allowed By Hon’Ble Itat, Jaipur & Hon’Ble High Court Of Rajasthan, Hon’Ble Itat Of 2

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Garg (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 96/JP/2021 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Karam Vir Yadav cuke CIT(A), Vs. M/s Shashank Engg. Works, NFAC. 191, M.I.A., Alwar-301001. PAN No.: AABPY 1852 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri J.P. Garg (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by :Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 08/11/2021 mn?kk…

Ssurya Resorts Private Limited, Dharamshala vs. DCIT, CPC/ACIT, Circle, Palampur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 194/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Of Income Under Section 139(1), Hence It Is An Allowable Expenditure As Per The Judgment Of Honorable Sc In The Case Of Pr. Cit Vs Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. 84 Taxmnn.Com 185

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 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…

A1 Force Security Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri vs. ACIT, Cir. -1, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 445/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 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…

M/S M.S.Sons J, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 44, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 344/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

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…

Art Rubber Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

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…

A.C.Paul Agricultural Co.(P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. ADIT, (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 319/KOL/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2021AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

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…

Nsib Security Services (P) Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 306/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 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…