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).

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 508)

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 9, New Delhi vs. Tv Today Network Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5204/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Senior DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)

…as the proviso there under. The 'due date’, being the bone of contention is, in my opinion, the date of filling of the return of the income u/s 139(1) of the Act. This is in due deference to the judicial pronouncement in the case of CIT vs. Aimil Ltd [(2010) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) wherein the jurisdictional High Court has allowed the appeal on this point relying on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusions Limited (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) as well as in CIT vs. Vinay Cement Ltd. 213 ITR 268 (SC) where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP of the Revenue on…

DCIT, Circle- 20(1), New Delhi vs. Planman Hr (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5152/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Vs Planman Hr (P) Ltd., Circle-20(1), 48, Community Centre, New Delhi. Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi. Pan: Aafcp0981K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Farhat Khan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th May, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, Relating Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The First Ground Raised By The Revenue Reads As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Under The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Law In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 54,31,041/- Made By The Ao Without Appreciating The Fact That The Amount Has Been Paid By Assessee Was On Account Of Infraction The Basis Of Explanation To Section 37 Of The Act Which Says That Any Expenditure Incurred By An Assessee For Any Purpose Which Is An Offence Or Which Is Prohibited By Law Shall Not Be Deemed To Have Been Incurred For The Purpose Of Business Or Profession & No Deduction Or Allowance Shall Be Made In Respect Of Such Expenditure.”

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Farhat Khan, Sr. DR

Section 37

…A.Y. 2013-14 in ITA Nos.5028/Del/2016 vide order dated 3301.2017 has dismissed the appeal of Revenue against the order of the CIT(Appeals) allowing relief to the appellant on similar facts. 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. 213 ITR 268. I find that the appellant has paid the Employee’s contribution to provident fund at Rs.6,98,27,223/- ESIC of Rs. 1,29,8…

Indo States Exports, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-28(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1892/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2018-19 Indo States Exports, Vs Acit, E-6, Kalindi Colony, Circle-28(1), New Delhi-110065. New Delhi. Pan-Aaafi1883M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, Ca Respondent By Sh. R.K.Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2021

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…of CIT vs Bharat Hotels Ltd. [2019] 103 Taxmann.com 295 (Delhi), can not be applied on the facts of the present case. Subsequently, the Hon’ble High Court considering the judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of the CIT vs AIMIL Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 508 (Del.) has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 3. In the contrary, Ld. DR opposed the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and supported the orders of authorities below. 2 | P a g e 4. I have heard the rival contentions and gone through the material available on record. I find that Ld.CIT(A) in paras 6.13 & 6.14 rejected th…

Maksat Technologies (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-16(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1540/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Maksat Technologies Pvt Ltd, Vs. Dcit, E-13, Ground Floor, Block No. B-1, Circle-16(1), Mohan Cooperative Estate, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaccm7831L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I. P. Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sohil Malik, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 32

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K.N.CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) Maksat Technologies Pvt Ltd, Vs. DCIT, E-13, Ground Floor, Block No. B-1, Circle-16(1), Mohan Cooperative Estate, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AACCM7831L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri I. P. Bansal, Adv Shri Vivek Bansal, Adv Revenue by: Shri Sohil Malik, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 31/03/2021 Date of pronouncement 30/06/2021 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT (A…

M/S. Krishnae Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax -6, Pune

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

ITA 427/PUN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.427/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Krishnae Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 94A, Sangita Smriti, N T Wadi, Shivajinagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaeck1307M बनाम / V/S. Pr.Cit-6, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Deepak Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.06.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Validity Of The Order Passed By The Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-6, Pune (‘The Pcit’) Dated 12.03.2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’). 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Erred In Invoking The Provisions Of Section 263 & Passing The Order U/S.263 Which Is Without Jurisdiction & Ab Initio Bad In Law. Appellant Prays To Cancel The Same. 2. Pr. Cit Erred In Setting Aside The Order U/S. 143(3) By Stating That No Verification Was Made By A.O. Regarding Payment Of Employee’S Contribution To Pf/Esic Of Rs.10,71,494/-. However, A) Order U/S. 143(3) Is Limited Scrutiny, Not On This Issue. B) Supreme Court & Bombay High Court Held Employees Payment Before Due Date Of Filing Are Allowable. Appellant Prays To Cancel The Order Passed By Pr. Cit. 3. Appellant Prays To Add, Alter, Amend & / Or Withdraw The Ground/S As The Occasion May Demand During Appellate Proceedings.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE (Through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.427/PUN/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/s. Krishnae Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 94A, Sangita Smriti, N T Wadi, Shivajinagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant PAN : AAECK1307M बनाम / V/s. Pr.CIT-6, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Deepak Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date of Hearing : 15.06.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 22.06.2021 आदेश / ORDER PER IN…

Azamgarh Steel & Power Private Limited, New Delhi vs. CPC, Banglore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1626/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Azamgarh Steel & Power Vs. Cpc Pvt. Ltd., Banglore 505, Dda Building, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi, Delhi-110092 Pan No. Aaica 4658 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain Advocate Shri Ashish Goel, C.A. Revenue By Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, New Delhi Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under:

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

…ective funds before the date of filing of return of income and therefore, no disallowance was warranted. In support of the aforesaid contention, the assessee also relied on various decisions including the decision in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. reported in 321 ITR 508 rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court. CIT(A) however, did not agree with the contentions of the assessee. He by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in 366 ITR 170 and other decisions cited in the order, upheld the order of CPC. Aggrieved by the order of CIT…

Mahalaxmi Tex Prints Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 712/HYD/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Apr 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara

For Appellant: Ms. Shika Mantri and Shri Sidharth Mantri, ARFor Respondent: Smt. N. Esther, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154

…h courts have adopted varying opinions regarding correctness of the impugned claim. Take for instance the case law against the assessee i.e. CIT vs Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) and in favour of assessee CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. 229 CTR 118 (2010) (Del) Bihar State Warehousing Corpn vs CIT 38 ITR 140 (Pat). It is thus clear that the impugned disallowance issue has been wrongly raised by the Assessing Officer in sec.154 proceedings on a debatable issue as per TS Balram vs. Volkart Brothers (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC). I therefore accept assessee’s sole substantive ground for this reason al…

Sri Mahalaxmi Tex Prints Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(3), Hyderabad

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 711/HYD/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Apr 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara

For Appellant: Ms. Shika Mantri and Shri Sidharth Mantri, ARFor Respondent: Smt. N. Esther, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154

…f the impugned claim. Take for instance the case law against the assessee i.e. CIT vs Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) and in favour of assessee CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. 229 CTR 118 (2010) (Del) Bihar State Warehousing Corpn vs CIT 38 ITR 140 (Pat). It is thus clear that the impugned disallowance issue has been wrongly raised by the Assessing Officer in sec.154 proceedings on a debatable issue as per TS Balram vs. Volkart Brothers (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC). I therefore accept assessee’s sole substantive ground for this reason alone and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned ad…

DCIT Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai vs. Talentpro India Hr. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 265/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 265/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Talentpro India Hr Pvt. Ltd., New No. 64, Old No. 30, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax, Vs. Corporate Circle 3(1), Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 008. [Pan:Aabcp9823A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Sanjeev Aditya, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai Dated 25.10.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Made Towards Belated Remittance Of Employees’ Contribution Of Pf & Esi, Which Was Disallowed Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2014-15 On 26.09.2014 Admitting Total

For Appellant: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri M. Sanjeev Aditya, C.A

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…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…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dee Development Engineers Ltd., Faridabad

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4959/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 143(2)Section 14A

…and ESI Act but before filing of the Income Tax Return. The Ld AR relied upon the decision of CIT Vs. Vinay Cement Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR (ST.) 1 (SC). The Ld. AR also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 and 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. As regards Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal, the Ld. AR submitted that during the present Assessment Year, the assessee claimed expenses under the head Sales Promotion at Rs.20,20,436/- a…

Sri Annapyrna Roller Flour Mill, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed

ITA 693/HYD/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Mar 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara

For Appellant: Ms. Shika Mantri and Shri Sidharth Mantri, ARFor Respondent: Smt. N. Esther, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD ‘ SMC’ BENCH : Hyderabad (Through Video Conference) BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 693/Hyd./2020 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Annapurna Roller Flour Mill vs. ITO, Ward 7(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [PAN: AAHFS0817N] (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee: Ms. Shika Mantri and Shri Sidharth Mantri, AR For Revenue: Smt. N. Esther, D.R. Date of Hearing : 24/03/2021 Date of Pronouncement : 30/03/2021 O R D E R This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2018-19 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3 “[CIT(A)]” Hyderabad’s order dated 10.09.202…

Dana India Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 473/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.473/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…lom Extrusions Limited (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) has held that the amendment to first proviso and omission of the second proviso to section 43B by the Finance Act, 2003, is retrospective. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Aimil Limited (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) has allowed deduction in respect of employees’ share when the amount was paid before the due date. When we consider these two judgments, it is manifested that both the employer’s and employees’ contribution are allowable as deduction if these are deposited albeit belatedly under the respective Acts, but before the due date of filing o…

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6525/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…plying the provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w. section 36 (1)(va), the AO added the same to the total income of the assessee. 95.1 In appeal, the ld.CIT(A), following the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd., reported in 321 ITR 508, deleted the addition on the ground that the assessee has deposited the above amount well before the due date of filing the tax return. 96. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 97. The ld. DR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the addition when the assessee has not paid th…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6256/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…plying the provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w. section 36 (1)(va), the AO added the same to the total income of the assessee. 95.1 In appeal, the ld.CIT(A), following the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd., reported in 321 ITR 508, deleted the addition on the ground that the assessee has deposited the above amount well before the due date of filing the tax return. 96. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 97. The ld. DR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the addition when the assessee has not paid th…

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3241/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…plying the provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w. section 36 (1)(va), the AO added the same to the total income of the assessee. 95.1 In appeal, the ld.CIT(A), following the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd., reported in 321 ITR 508, deleted the addition on the ground that the assessee has deposited the above amount well before the due date of filing the tax return. 96. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 97. The ld. DR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the addition when the assessee has not paid th…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3114/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…plying the provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w. section 36 (1)(va), the AO added the same to the total income of the assessee. 95.1 In appeal, the ld.CIT(A), following the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd., reported in 321 ITR 508, deleted the addition on the ground that the assessee has deposited the above amount well before the due date of filing the tax return. 96. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 97. The ld. DR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the addition when the assessee has not paid th…

The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Genus Electrotech Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:

ITA 701/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

…dismissed.” 32.2 Before us, the learned Counsel of the assessee submitted that deduction for employees contribution is allowable on payment basis as per section 43B of the Act as held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs AIMIL Ltd., [(2010) 321 ITR 508 (HC Delhi). Whereas the Learned DR submitted that the Learned CIT(A) has correctly disallowed in terms of the jurisdictional High Court decision. She further submitted that even Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. (in ITA No. 271/2005) has held that employees’ contribution is allowed, if paid before the due date pro…

M/S. Genus Electrotech Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:

ITA 348/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

…dismissed.” 32.2 Before us, the learned Counsel of the assessee submitted that deduction for employees contribution is allowable on payment basis as per section 43B of the Act as held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs AIMIL Ltd., [(2010) 321 ITR 508 (HC Delhi). Whereas the Learned DR submitted that the Learned CIT(A) has correctly disallowed in terms of the jurisdictional High Court decision. She further submitted that even Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. (in ITA No. 271/2005) has held that employees’ contribution is allowed, if paid before the due date pro…

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Genus Eletrotech Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:

ITA 2617/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

…dismissed.” 32.2 Before us, the learned Counsel of the assessee submitted that deduction for employees contribution is allowable on payment basis as per section 43B of the Act as held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs AIMIL Ltd., [(2010) 321 ITR 508 (HC Delhi). Whereas the Learned DR submitted that the Learned CIT(A) has correctly disallowed in terms of the jurisdictional High Court decision. She further submitted that even Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. (in ITA No. 271/2005) has held that employees’ contribution is allowed, if paid before the due date pro…

M/S. Genus Electrotech Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle- 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:

ITA 2461/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

…dismissed.” 32.2 Before us, the learned Counsel of the assessee submitted that deduction for employees contribution is allowable on payment basis as per section 43B of the Act as held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs AIMIL Ltd., [(2010) 321 ITR 508 (HC Delhi). Whereas the Learned DR submitted that the Learned CIT(A) has correctly disallowed in terms of the jurisdictional High Court decision. She further submitted that even Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. (in ITA No. 271/2005) has held that employees’ contribution is allowed, if paid before the due date pro…

CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.

What is CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 9, New Delhi vs. Tv Today Network Ltd., New Delhi

DCIT, Circle- 20(1), New Delhi vs. Planman Hr (P) Ltd., New Delhi

Indo States Exports, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-28(1), New Delhi

Maksat Technologies (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-16(1), New Delhi

M/S. Krishnae Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax -6, Pune

Azamgarh Steel & Power Private Limited, New Delhi vs. CPC, Banglore

Mahalaxmi Tex Prints Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

Sri Mahalaxmi Tex Prints Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(3), Hyderabad

DCIT Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai vs. Talentpro India Hr. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dee Development Engineers Ltd., Faridabad

Sri Annapyrna Roller Flour Mill, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad

Dana India Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(2), Pune

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Genus Electrotech Limited, Ahmedabad

M/S. Genus Electrotech Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Genus Eletrotech Limited, Ahmedabad

M/S. Genus Electrotech Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle- 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad