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.

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

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

ITA 99/AHD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

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 DCIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. Genus Electrotech Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1899/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

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 DCIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. Genus Electrotech Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1898/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

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 ACIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1763/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

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 DCIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Genus Electrotech Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 100/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

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 2831/AHD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

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 2830/AHD/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

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…

DCIT Corporate Circle 1 (1), Chennai vs. M/S Agnice Fire Protection Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 1107/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1107/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Agnice Fire Protection Limited, Income Tax, Vs. No. 2, G.K. Industrial Estate, I Main Corporate Circle 1(1), Road, Alapakkam, Porur Post, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 116. [Pan: Aaaca9432F] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Suresh Periasamy, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2021 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)-3, Chennai Dated 29.12.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Made Towards Non-Payment Of Employees Contribution Of Epf & Esi To The Tune Of ₹.61.71 Lakhs, Which Was Disallowed Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Periasamy, JCITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate

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…

A Design India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5915/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

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

…by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs AIMIL Ltd (2010) 321 ITR 508 has accepted the claim of the deduction for payments of employees contribution to ESI/PF and accordingly restricted the disallowance for payments made after the date of the filing of the return of income. The finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under : “My predecessor for AY 2015-16 in the appellant’s own case has decided as under: I hav…

Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 830/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.830/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr.I.Dinesh, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

Section 36(1)(va)

…of Sections 2(24)(x), 36(1)(va), 43B(b) and the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Alom Extrusions Ltd., reported in 319 ITR 306 (SC), Vinay Cement Ltd. 213 CTR 2108 (SC), the Delhi High Court decision in the case of Amil Ltd., reported in 321 ITR 508, the Madras High Court decisions in the case of CIT v. M/s.Industrial Security & Intelligence :- 4 -: India Pvt. Ltd., and also the Hon’ble single judge decision in the case of Unifac Management Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT in WP No.5264 of 2020, WMP No.6461 of 2018 vide order dated 23.10.2018 reported in (2018) 409 ITR 225 (Mad), etc., t…

A.C.I.T., Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Reach Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1547/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury)

Section 250Section 263Section 40Section 40A(7)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA (Virtual Court) (Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Sri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Judicial Member) I.T.A. No. 1547/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 ACIT, Circle-1(2), Kolkata.................................................................................................Appellant Vs. M/s. Reach Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd.….........................................................................Respondent [PAN: AACCR 6653 F] Appearances by: Sh. Dhrubajyoti Ray, JCIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Sh. Soumitra Choudhury, Adv. Sh. Jaydee…

Freight Systems India Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Cirlce -2 (1), Chennai

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

ITA 106/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2020AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.106/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Freight Systems (India) Private The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Super A-7, Rathna Tower 1, 1St Vs. Income Tax, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Floor, Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Room No. 511, Wanaparthy Block, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. No. 121, M.G. Road, Nungambakkam, [Pan: Aaacf0677K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Chennai Dated 27.09.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made In Respect Of Remittance Of Employee’S Contribution Made To Pf/Esi.

For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 115JSection 143(1)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…

Gdx Facility & Management Services P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-10(10, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5218/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Naman Desai, CAFor Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S GDX FACILITY & Vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 10(10), MANAGEMENT SERVICES NEW DELHI P. LTD., ROOM NO. 207, AAYAKAR 29, GDX HOUSE, SANT BHAWAN, NAGAR, EAST OF KAILASH, LAXMI NAGAR, DELHI-2 NEW DELHI - 110015 (PAN :AACCG5199H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Naman Desai, CA Respondent by : Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM : Assesee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order…

Srinivasa Fashins Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward-6(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1396/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy)नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Heard Through Video Conferencing V. M/S.Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, No.57G, Sidco Industrial Estate, Corporate Ward-6(4), Ambattur, Chennai. Chennai-600 098. [Pan: Aaics 9511 R] (अपीलाथ./Appellant) (/0यथ./Respondent) : अपीलाथ. क1 ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.N.Vijay Kumar, Ca : Mr.Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Jcit /0यथ. क1 ओर से /Respondent By : 28.09.2020 सुनवाई क1 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2020 घोषणा क1 तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar:

For Respondent: 28.09.2020

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

…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 :- 24 -: ITR 306, whereby , the Supreme Court held that omission of second proviso to Section 43B and amendment to first proviso by Finance Act, 2003…

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal filed by the ld AO on the limited issue that order passed by the ld AO is barred by limitation. Ground No. 1 is dismissed

ITA 6079/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit(Ltu), Vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd, Circle-1, 16, Bhikaji Cama Place, Nbcc Plaza Pusp Vihar, Rk Puram, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263

…ted to this addition were also disclosed before the AO at the time of original assessment proceedings. The said issue, even otherwise, is covered in favour of appellant by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s AIMIL Ltd, reported in 321 ITR 508 on merits. Without prejudice to the same, there was no non-disclosure of any material facts on this issue as well at the time of original assessment proceedings. Even otherwise, reopening cannot be done on an issue which is covered in favour of the appellant on merits by an order of the jurisdictional High Court. Therefore reopening does not surv…

DCIT Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai vs. Repco Home Finance P Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA no

ITA 2885/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: JCITFor Respondent: Shri M. Viswanathan, C.A

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

…pra) in favour :- 61 -: 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 cura…

DCIT, Corporate Circle-3, Chennai vs. Cema Electric Lighting Products India Ltd, Chennai

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

ITA 18/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 May 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 18/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Cema Electric Lighting Products Income Tax, Vs. India Ltd., 10, Anna Avenue, Corporate Circle 1(2), Bhakthavatsalam Nagar, Adyar, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 020 [Pan: Aaccc9663Q] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. R. Anita, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.05.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.05.2020 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)-1, Chennai Dated 27.10.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Effective Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Made In Respect Of Employees Contribution Towards Provident Fund As Well As Deleting The Disallowance Of ₹.5.07 Crores Made In Respect Of The Disproportionate Expenditure Towards Salary & Wages.

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anita, JCITFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA

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

…d the issue in favour of the assessee on 08.08.2018. 4.2 However, by following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306 as well as decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Amil Ltd. 321 ITR 508, in the case of CIT v. Industrial Security & Intelligence India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Division bench of the Hon’ble Madras High Court has given a concrete decision that once the assessee had remitted the employees contribution beyond the due date for payment, but within the due date for filing the return of income, no disallowance could be made…

Servion Global Solutions Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1974/CHNY/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2020AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 194JSection 195Section 36(1)(va)Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…e for payment but within the due date for filing the return of income. The Jurisdictional High Court following the decision of CIT vs Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 306 (SC) and Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs Amil Ltd. reported in 321 ITR 508 upheld the tribunal decision that payment of PF and ESI made beyond the grace period/due date allowed under PF & ESI Act but before the due date of filing the income tax return cannot be disallowed u/s. 43 of the Act. Further, the Ld. AR also relied on this ITAT decision in the assessee’s case for assessment year 2005-06. Per contra, on the iss…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Buzzworks Business Services Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 3227/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3227/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Buzzworks Business Services Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(2), Vs. Pvt. Ltd., No. 730, New No. 212, Pla Rathna Towers, 3Rd Floor, Chennai 600 034. Anna Salai, Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Aaccb8364P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri A. Sundararajan, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri A. Sundararajan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate

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

…insertion of first proviso. The co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal considering a similar issue in the case of M/s.Venkateswara Electrical Industries P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) following the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amil Ltd. (321 ITR 508) held that even the employees contribution to provident fund is to be allowed as deduction if it is paid within due date for filing of return. While holding so, the Tribunal observed as under:- “6. We have heard the submissions made by the representatives of both the sides and have perused the orders of the authorities below, as well as the judgm…

Inject Care Parenterals Pvt. Ltd., Vapi vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 739/AHD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 739/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Inject Care Parenterals Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., Plot No.130, Gidc, Vs. Circle-2(1)(1), Vapi, Ahmedabad. Gujarart.

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr.D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(v)Section 37Section 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ C’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 739/AHD/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Inject Care Parenterals Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., Plot No.130, GIDC, Vs. Circle-2(1)(1), Vapi, Ahmedabad. Gujarart. PAN: AABCI0232J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Manish J. Shah, A.R Revenue by : Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr.D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 26/11/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 23/01/2020 आदेश/O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUN…