How many judgments cite CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.?

1,629 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. (321 ITR 508), spanning 2010 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 36(1)(va), Section 143(1), Section 1961, Section 43B, Section 139(1), Section 154.

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 1961 Section 43B Section 139(1)Section 154 Section 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 basis section 36(1)(iv)section 2(24)(x)section 2(24)section 36(1)(va)section 34

Judgments citing CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.

Talbot and Co., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-40(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-

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…

Jiya Exim (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 251/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S. Brivas Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 845/CHNY/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.845/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, C.A &'For Respondent: Mr. AR V Sreenivasan

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)

…ssessee preferred further appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 306, decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V. Aimil Ltd. reported in 321 ITR 508 and that of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Venkateswara Electrical Industries P. Ltd. V. DCIT in ITA Nos.1344, 1345 and 1636/Mds/ 2014 dated 28.8.2014 held as follows: “5. Heard both sides. Perused orders of lower authorities and the decisions relied on before us. It is not in dispute that all these payments of providen…

Suresh Kumar, Haryana vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 974/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) Suresh Kumar Vs. Dcit C/O. Lc Yadav & Company Cpc 205 Areaduam Siytg Cutt- Bengaluru 2, Sector – 49, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001 Pan : Apbpk 0376 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri L. C. Yadav, Adv. Revenue By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.11.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-1’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Suresh Kumar Vs. DCIT C/o. LC Yadav & Company CPC 205 Areaduam Siytg Cutt- Bengaluru 2, Sector – 49, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001 PAN : APBPK 0376 H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri L. C. Yadav, Adv. Revenue by Shri Om Prakash, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 11.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 17.11.2021 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12.08.2021 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi rel…

Flying Fabrication, Gurgaon vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengalurur

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

ITA 1407/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms. Swati Talwar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr.D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 244ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(v)

…in the stipulated time u/s.139(1) then no disallowance can be made in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Vinay Cement Ltd., reported in (2007) 213 ITR 268 and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. (2009) 321 ITR 508 (Del). 3. In the order of National Faceless, i.e., the First Appellate order, the relevant finding on this issue for the Assessment Year 2018-19 are as under: 5 I.T.A. No.1049 & 1407/Del/2021 “4.3 I have examined the issue. It is matter of fact that the appellant has not paid the employee’s contribution towards PF/ESI totalling to Rs. 88,58,0…

Flying Fabrication, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

ITA 1049/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms. Swati Talwar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr.D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 244ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(v)

Vinay Zibbu, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle- 34(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1866/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2018-19 Vinay Zibbu, Vs. Acit, D-1/124, 2Nd Floor, Circle-34(1), Sector-16, New Delhi. Rohini, New Delhi. Pan: Aaepz5493N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Priyanshu Goyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2021 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28Th August, 2020 Of The Cit(A)-13, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, These All Relate To The Ex Parte Order Of The Cit(A) In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.14,59,784/- Made By The Ao In The Order Passed U/S 154 Of The It Act By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 2(24)(X) R.W.S. 36(1)(Va) Of The It Act On Account Of Late Deposit Of Employee/Employer Contribution Of Pf & Esi. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Doing The Business Of Security Agency. He Filed His Return Of Income On 27Th October, 2018 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.21,43,950/-. The Cpc, Bangalore In The Order Processed U/S 143(1)(A) Proposed Adjustment Of Rs.14,59,784/- On Account Of Late Deposit Of Pf/Esi. The Assessee Filed An Application Stating That The Payments Have Been Duly Deposited Before The Due Date Of Filing Of The Return Of Income. Finally, In The Intimation-Cum-Order U/S 154 Of The Act Dated 15Th June, 2019 The Cpc Bangalore Assessed The Income At Rs.37,53,733/- Against The Returned Income Of Rs.22,93,949/- By Making An Addition Of Rs.14,59,784/- On Account Of Late Deposit Of Late Deposit Of Employee/Employer Contribution Of Pf & Esi 2(24)(X) R.W.S. 36(1)(Va) Of The It Act.

For Appellant: Shri Priyanshu Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36(1)(va)

…of the IT Act. He submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.983/2018, order dated 10th September, 2018, following its earlier decision in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd., reported in 320 ITR 508, has held that “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 of Employee's Provident Fund (EPD) and Employee's State Insurance Scheme (ESI) as deemed income of the employer under…

Gagan Saxena, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-22(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1865/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2018-19 Gagan Saxena, Vs. Acit, H-92/6, Shivaji Park, Circle-22(2), Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan: Axfps2632E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Priyanshu Goyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2021 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18Th August, 2020 Of The Cit(A)-8, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, These All Relate To The Order Of The Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.9,34,630/- On Account Of Late Deposit Of Pf/Esi U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W. Section 2(24)(X) Of The It Act. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Is Engaged In The Business Of Supply Of Manpower. He Filed His Return Of Income On 26Th October, 2018 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.18,25,292/-. The Cpc, Bangalore Vide Intimation U/S 143(1) Dated 17Th May, 2019 Has Processed The Said Return At An Income Of Rs.27,66,590/- By Making Total Addition/Disallowance Of Rs.9,34,630/- On Account Of Late Deposit Of Pf/Esi U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S 2(24)(X) Of The It Act.

For Appellant: Shri Priyanshu Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…the IT Act. He submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Pro 2 Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.983/2018, order dated 10th September, 2018, following its earlier decision in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd., reported in 320 ITR 508, has held that “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 of Employee's Provident Fund (EPD) and Employee's State Insurance Scheme (ESI) as deemed income of the employer under…

Arco Lab Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 455/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariandshri George George Kassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…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.) Page 11 of 14 13. DCIT vs. Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd. [2016] 160 lTD 432 (Visakhapatnam - Trib…

ACIT, Circle- 8(1), New Delhi vs. Earthline Apparels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 6474/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms. Suchitra Kambleasstt. Year 2013-14 Acit, Circle 8(1) Vs. M/S. Earthline Apparels Pvt. New Delhi. Ltd., 2168, Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110 005 Pan Aabce4236G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR

…ITA No. 6474/Del/2018 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Year 2013-14 ACIT, Circle 8(1) Vs. M/s. Earthline Apparels Pvt. New Delhi. Ltd., 2168, Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110 005 PAN AABCE4236G (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR Assessee by : Shri R.K. Kapoor, CA Date of Hearing 10/11/2021 Date of 15/11/2021 pronouncement O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE,JM This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order dated 19.07.2018 p…

Chattar Pal, Haryana vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 976/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Chattar Pal, Vs Dcit, C/O-Lc Yadav & Company, Cpc, # 205 Arcadia, South City-2, Bengaluru. Sector-49, Gurgaon, Haryana-122018 Pan-Asxpp1175E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri L C Yadav, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11.11.2021

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…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. [Assessment Year : 2018-19] 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 High…

Mohammed Darus Salam, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 946/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Mohammed Darus Salam, Vs Dcit, 15/5A, Old Chandrawal, Civil Lines, Cpc, New Delhi-110054. Bengaluru. Pan-Afgpd5866E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manu K.Giri, Adv., Shri Aseem Chawla, Adv. & Ms. Sonia Dudeja, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11.11.2021

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)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. 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 [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Ld.CIT(A). He further relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi Hig…

Karimuddin Sani, Delhi vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 930/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Karimuddin Sani, Vs Adit, 64, Gali Kababian, Jama Masjid, Cpc, Delhi-110006. Bengaluru. Pan-Aoeps7092E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Paramjit Khanna, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11.11.2021

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)

…overed 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. [Assessment Year : 2019-20] 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…

Ashirbad Infrastructure Services & Facilities Management Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-3(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1859/DEL/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) Ashirbad Infrastructure Vs. Dcit Services & Facilities Circle – 3(2) Management Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 1, Upper Ground Floor, Devika Tower 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110 019 Pan : Aagca 2338 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Tilak Talwar, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-1’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Ashirbad Infrastructure Vs. DCIT Services and Facilities Circle – 3(2) Management Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 1, Upper Ground Floor, Devika Tower 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110 019 PAN : AAGCA 2338 A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Tilak Talwar, Adv. Revenue by Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 28.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 11.11.2021 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31.08.2020 of the…

Surendra Kumar Thakur, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1761/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) Surendra Kumar Thakur Vs. Dcit Cpc K-230, Jhangir Puri, Bangalore New Delhi, Delhi – 110 033 Pan : Aczpt 1746 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. Shri Deepanshu Jain, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-1’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Surendra Kumar Thakur Vs. DCIT CPC K-230, Jhangir Puri, Bangalore New Delhi, Delhi – 110 033 PAN : ACZPT 1746 R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. Shri Deepanshu Jain, Adv. Revenue by Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 28.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 11.11.2021 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 14.08.2020 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, New Delhi re…

Sony India Software Centre Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 398/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Nov 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: AdvocateFor Respondent: JCIT (DR)

Section 10ASection 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…Software Services Private Limited vs. DCIT I.T.A. No. 2 197/HYD/20 17 [Assessment Year: 2013-14] dated 19.05.2021; Page 8 of 9 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. 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. Nuzi…

Star Facilities Management Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward -24(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1755/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2017-18 Star Facilities Management Limited, Vs. Ito, 115-Ansal Bhawan, Ward-24(2), 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aalcs2854C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Arta Trana Panda, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.11.2021 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 4Th August, 2020 Of The Cit(A)-8, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Only Effective Ground Raised By The Assessee In The Instant Appeal Is Regarding The Order Of The Cit(A) In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.2,62,984/- On Account Of Delayed Payment Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf & Esi. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 30Th July, 2018 Declaring Nil Income. The Return Was Processed On 15Th May, 2019 At Cpc, Bangalore At An Income Of Rs.2,62,980/- By Making An Addition Of Rs.2,62,984/- On Account Of Late Deposit Of Pf/Esi U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The It Act. Before The Cit(A), The Assessee, Relying On Various Decisions, Submitted That The Addition Is Not Justified Since The Assessee Has Deposited The Employees’ Contribution To Pf & Esi Before The Due Date Of Filing The Return Of Income. However, The Ld.Cit(A), Following The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Delhi High Court In The Case Of Cit Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd., Reported In 410 Itr 417 & Various Other Decisions, Held That The Assessee Is Not Entitled To Deduction U/S 36(1)(Va) Due To Failure On His Part In Depositing The Employees’ Contribution On Or Before The Due Date.

For Appellant: Shri Arta Trana Panda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…the IT Act. He submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.983/2018, order dated 10th 2 September, 2018, following its earlier decision in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd., reported in 320 ITR 508, has held that “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 of Employee's Provident Fund (EPD) and Employee's State Insurance Scheme (ESI) as deemed income of the employer under…

Chatru Mal Garg, Faridabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 850/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) Chatru Mal Garg Vs. Acit Plot No.98, Sector – 25, Circle – 1 Faridabad, Faridabad Haryana - 121005 Pan : Abzpg 7929 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Alok Kumar Gupta, C.A. Revenue By Shri R. K. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Chatru Mal Garg Vs. ACIT Plot No.98, Sector – 25, Circle – 1 Faridabad, Faridabad Haryana - 121005 PAN : ABZPG 7929 C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Alok Kumar Gupta, C.A. Revenue by Shri R. K. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 07.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 29.10.2021 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.05.2021 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi relating to Assessment Ye…

Ajay Mehta, Gurgaon vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 849/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) Ajay Mehta Vs. Adit L-1073, Devender Vihar Cpc Sector – 56, Gurgaon Bengalore Haryana- 122 011 Pan : Aeipm 3736 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rakesh Kumar, C.A. Revenue By Shri R. K. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Ajay Mehta Vs. ADIT L-1073, Devender Vihar CPC Sector – 56, Gurgaon Bengalore Haryana- 122 011 PAN : AEIPM 3736 K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Rakesh Kumar, C.A. Revenue by Shri R. K. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 05.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 29.10.2021 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.02.2020 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi…

Transzone Logistics (India) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1740/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) Ita Nos.1739 & 1740/Del/2020 (Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19) Transzone Logistrics Vs. Dcit Cpc (India) Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore House No.259, Front Side First Floor, Shahabad Mohammadpur, New Delhi-110 075 Pan : Aadct 7687 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Gunjan Jain, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…s 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. CIT 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 th…