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.

M/S. Jana Urban Services for Transformation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 307/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh S Gaddi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri I.C Prabhakar, JCIT(DR)

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 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…

Express Roadways P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-8(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5570/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Sanjay Garg(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Express Roadway P. Vs. Acit Ltd., Ed-62-B, Madhuban Circle – 8(2) Chowk, Pitampura, New Delhi New Delhi – 110 088 Pan : Aaace 0255 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri R. N. Poonia, C.A. Revenue By Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.10.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…that though there was delay in deposit of ESI & EPF contribution but the same were deposited with the appropriate authorities before the due date of filing of return of income. We find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Limited (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del) held has under: “17. We may only add that if the employees‟ contribution is not deposited by the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts and is deposited late, the employer not only pays interest on delayed payment but can incur penalties also, for which specific provisions are made in the Provident Fund Act as well as the ESI Act. Ther…

ACIT, Circle-8(1), New Delhi vs. Educomp Solutions Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5002/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Sanjay Garg(Through Video Conferencing) Acit Vs. Educomp Solutions Ltd., Circle – 8(1), 1211, Padam Tower-1, 5 New Delhi - 110002 Rajendra Place New Delhi – 110 008 Pan : Aaace 2983 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By --None-- Revenue By Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.10.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) ACIT Vs. Educomp Solutions Ltd., Circle – 8(1), 1211, Padam Tower-1, 5 New Delhi - 110002 Rajendra Place New Delhi – 110 008 PAN : AAACE 2983 M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by --None-- Revenue by Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 04.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 08.10.2021 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 02.04.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (App…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Oxigen Services India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

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

ITA 5467/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2007-08

Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36

…voked the provision of Section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act and treated the delayed payment of Rs.53,627/- employee’s contribution to Provident Fund as appellant’s income. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. (2010 321 ITR 508 has held that the assessee can get the benefit of deduction if the payment is made before the return is filed, as per the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Vinay Cement Ltd., 2013 ITR 268. I find that the appellant has paid the Empoyee’s contribution to Provident Fund before the due date of furnishing th…

DCIT, Circle- 10(2), New Delhi vs. Crescent Epc Projects and Technical Services Ltd. (Earlier Known As Gvk Projects and Technical Services Ltd.), Secunderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 399/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms. Chandani Shah, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Maninder Kaur, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)

…before the due date of filing of return of income, i.e., 30th November, 2015, he submitted that the same also stands covered by the catena of judgments including that of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Aimil Ltd. as reported in (2010) 321 ITR 508 and PCIT vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 983 of 2018 (Delhi). Further, in support, she also relied upon the following judgments, the copy of which has been placed in the paper book. Page No. Sr. Case-law Citation No. 1. Indian Geotechnical Services vs ACIT. ITA No. 622/Del/20i8 (Del. Trib.) 1-18 2. Crescent Roadways Pr…

DCIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi vs. Usha International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3318/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiasstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36

…applicable in the case of the appellant. Therefore, the 6 impugned addition made in the ground of appeal (Rs. 16717/-) deserves to be deleted in view of various decisions of the Delhi High Court including the decision in the case of CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. (2010) 311 ITR 508 (Del.). Accordingly, disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 16,717/- is directed to be deleted.” 12. Once the payments have been made on or due date of return of income then we do not find any infirmity in the aforesaid finding of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly this ground of the revenue is dismissed. 13. In the result the appeal of the r…

Cybermate Infotek Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 2256/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14 Cybermate Infotek Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 1(4), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabcc 4776F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 24/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/09/2021

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai

Section 143(3)Section 37

…n u/s 139(1) of the Act, no disallowance is warranted. The authorities below made the addition in the absence of proof of making payment by the assessee before the due date of filing of return. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT VS. Aimil Ltd. & Ors. [(2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del)] has held that if the employees’ share of contribution is paid before the due date of filing the return u/s 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act), then no disallowance can be made. In view of the foregoing facts it is clear that the assessee deserves and is hereby allowed relief on this issue in the light of the ab…

Dhabriya Polywood Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT-C-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 53/JPR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2021AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Ashish Nehra (JCIT) a

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

…ion 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 19. We further note that though the ld. CIT(A) has not disputed the various decisions of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court and various other High Courts including Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs AIMIL Ltd 321 ITR 508 which were brought to his notice by the ld AR during the course of appellate proceedings but has decided to follow the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of State Road Transport Corporation (supra). Given the divergent view taken by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court as against consistent view of other High Courts including the Hon’bl…

Indian Geotechnical Services, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 61(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 622/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Brij Kishor Anand, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr.D.R

…return of income u/s.139(1) is an allowable claim as per the provision of I.T.A. No.622/DEL/2018 7 Section 43B of the Income Tax Act. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Aimil Ltd. as reported in (2009) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi). 10. On the other hand, ld. DR has submitted that there are decisions in favour of the Revenue wherein the Hon’ble High Courts have held that the amendment by Finance Act, 2015 in Section 43B is restricted only in respect of employer’s contribution to PF and ESI and if the same is paid on or before the due date of filing of income u/s. 13…

K.P. Airtech, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/JPR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2021AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Miss. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 253(5)Section 36(1)(va)

K.P. Airtech, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 41/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2021AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Miss. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 253(5)Section 36(1)(va)

Sohan Lal Tambi, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward1(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 40/JPR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2021AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

…ion 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 15. We further note that though the ld. CIT(A) has not disputed the various decisions of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court and various other High Courts including Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs AIMIL Ltd 321 ITR 508 which were brought to his notice by the ld AR during the course of appellate proceedings but has decided to follow the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Madras, Gujarat and Kerala High Courts. Given the divergent views taken by the various High Courts and in the instant case, the fact that the jurisdiction over the Assessing officer lies with the…

DCIT, Circle-II, Allahabad vs. Bharat Pumps & Compressors Ltd, Allahabad

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 148/ALLD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad12 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms. Tanu Singhal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)

…Security (supra) in favour of tax-payer referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Limited reported in 319 ITR 306(SC) and decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Aimil Limited reported in (2010) 321 ITR 508(Del.) , and Hon'ble Madras High Court held as under : 5. We find that the Tribunal has rightly relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Alom Extrusion Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 306, whereby , the Supreme Court held that omission of second proviso to Section 43B and amendment to first proviso by Finance Act, 2003 are curati…

DCIT, Circle-II, Allahabad vs. Bharat Pumps & Compressors Ltd, Allahabad

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 147/ALLD/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad12 Aug 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms. Tanu Singhal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)

ACIT, Circle- 4(2), New Delhi vs. Bhadra International India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 4459/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. D. R

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…the only issue involved is the deletion of disallowances by the ld CIT(A) on account of late deposit of employee‟s contribution to the employees provident fund and ESIC fund relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd 321 ITR 508. The ld AO is aggrieved with that and hence these appeals. 3. The fact for Assessment Year 2013-14 shows that the assessee filed its return of income on 29.09.2013 at loss of Rs. 57,83,50,735/-. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was made on 30.12.2015 determining loss of the assessee of Rs. 57,98,00,740/-. Thereafter the ld AO noted that sum o…

ACIT, Circle- 4(2), New Delhi vs. Bhadra International India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 4458/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. D. R

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Insta Exhibitions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6941/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Insta Exhibitions Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, C/O. Chachan & Lath, 1308-1309, Special Range-4, Best Sky Tower, F-5, Netaji New Delhi Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi, New Delhi Pan: Aabci1085P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR

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

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) Insta Exhibitions Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Addl. CIT, C/o. chachan & Lath, 1308-1309, Special Range-4, Best Sky Tower, F-5, Netaji New Delhi Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi, New Delhi PAN: AABCI1085P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by: Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 03/08/2021 Date of pronouncement 03/08/2021 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of the ld CIT(A)-35,…

Onward Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’ appeal stand partly allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 266/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.266/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1785/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Onward Technologies Limited Dcit-7(1) Sterling Centre, 2Nd Floor Room No.622, 6Th Floor बिाम/ Dr. Annie Besant Road Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Marg Vs. Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-3742-J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1793/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dcit-7(1) Onward Technologies Limited Room No.622, 6Th Floor बिाम/ Sterling Centre, 2Nd Floor Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Marg Dr. Annie Besant Road Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Worli, Mumbai-400 018 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-3742-J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : S/Shri J.P. Bairagra & Ashish Bairagra - Ld. Ars Revenue By : Shri Manpreet S. Duggal- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 23/07/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 02/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: S/Shri J.P. Bairagra & Ashish Bairagra - Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri Manpreet S. Duggal- Ld. Sr. DR

Section 10ASection 92Section 92B

…1 M/s Onward Technologies Limited Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “जे” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री अमरजीत स िंह, न्याययक सदस्य एवुं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.266/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1785/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Onward Technologies Limited DCIT-7(1) Sterling Centre, 2nd Floor Roo…

Yogi Ji Technoequip Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1609/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2018-19 Yogi Ji Technoequip Pvt.Ltd., Vs Dcit, C/O-Rra Taxindia, D-28, Cpc, Bengaluru. South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi-110034. Pan-Aaacy3222D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh.Somil Aggarwal, Ca Respondent By Sh.Gaurav Pundir, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2021

Section 143(1)Section 2Section 234A

…t.Ltd. vs CPC order dated 31.05.2021 wherein Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bharat Hotels Ltd. (supra) did not take note of the judgement rendered in the case of CIT vs AIMIL Ltd. reported in 321 ITR 508 (Del.). He further submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt.Ltd. in ITA No.983/2018 pronounced on 10.09.2018 decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 7. Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR supported the decision of the authorities below and relied on the case laws submitted before Ld.CIT(…

Pawan Kumar Janghu, Gurgaon vs. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1600/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2018-19 Pawan Kumar Janghu, Vs Dcit, C/O-Ca M R Sahu & Associates, Cpc, Bengaluru. H.No.651, Ff, Sec-10A, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001. Pan-Aevpj8333C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. M.R.Sahu, Ca Respondent By Sh.Gaurav Pundir, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2021

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