CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.

321 ITR 508High Court2010#20 most cited

What is CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. authority for?

Employee contributions to PF and ESIC, deposited beyond the due date under the respective Acts but within the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1), are allowable deductions under Section 36(1)(va). Such disallowance cannot be made during processing under Section 143(1).

1,629

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. · AIMIL Ltd. · Section 36(1)(va) · Section 43B · employee contribution PF ESIC · delayed deposit provident fund · deposit before 139(1) due date · disallowance 143(1) adjustment · actual payment basis PF ESIC · Section 2(24)(x) · due date for payment of employee contribution

Also reported as

188 Taxmann 265229 CTR 118

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(va)Section 143(1)Section 1961Section 43BSection 139(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 143(1)(a)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 43(b)section 36(va)section 34(1)(iv)section 3(b)section 43b(b)section 34(1)actual payment basissection 36(1)(iv)section 2(24)(x)section 2(24)section 36(1)(va)section 34

Judgments citing CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.

I.T.O. Ward -3(4), Nagpur vs. M/S Deepak Construction, Nagpur

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

ITA 187/NAG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.187/Nag/2015 ननिाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Nagpur. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Deepak Construction New Bhanegaon, Khaparkheda, Saoner, Nagpur- 441102. Pan: Aadfd4092L ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri U.U. Kesar
Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

…of said amendment in the following judicial pronouncement:- CIT Vs. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD. (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC).CIT Vs. VINAY CEMENT LTD.(2007) 213 CTR 268 (SC),CIT Vs. GEORGE WILLAMSON (ASSAM) LTD.(2006) 284 ITR 619 (GAU.) & CIT Vs. AIMIL LTD. & ORS. (2010) 321 ITR 508 (DEL.) ; (Copies of decisions are enclosed) It is therefore, your honour is kindly requested to delete the disallowance of EPF of Rs.1,24,444/- and oblige.” 7. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) after considering the submissions of the assessee, assessment order and facts of the case has held as follows: “10. I have considered the facts of the case and submi…

Saravana Stores (Tex), Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 151/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 151/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Saravana Stores(Tex), 42-45,Ranganathan Street, Income Tax, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Central Circle 1(2), [Pan: Aawfs6761Q] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By Ms. T. Sandhyaarti, Ca ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Guru Bashyam, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2019

For Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…assessee 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. Amil 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 provident…

Infor India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Infor Global Solutions (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 212/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Memebr Assessment Year: 2012-13 Infor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Infor Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Global Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd.), Hyderabad Pan – Aaacb6197Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Sunil Motilala Revenue By: Shri Yvst Sai

For Appellant: Shri Sunil MotilalaFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 92C

…n be made where the contribution is deposited 15 M/s Infor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. late but within the grace period. In most of the cases the deposit has been made with in the grace period. 2. 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…

Selva Gold Covering Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed

ITA 693/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms.R.Anitha, JCITFor Respondent: 11.11.2019
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 43B

…ntribution to P.F. and E.S.I. paid within the due dates for filing the Return prescribed under Sec.139 (1), can be allowed as a deduction following the verdict of Supreme Court and also the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of C.l.T. Vs AIMIL Ltd. (321 ITR 508). 12. For these or any other grounds that may be raised at the time of hearing of appeal, it is prayed that the Honorable Tribunal may be pleased to pass orders deleting the Addition made amounting to Rs.33,32,061/- representing the claim of Deduction of P.F. and E.S.I, contribution of employees and pass orders dismissing the Appellate order of…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Nirja Publishers & Printers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1063/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 253(2)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43BSection 80Section 80I

…deposited 7 well before the due date of filing of return of income. The assessee has explained the circumstances in which such delay has been occurred. Thus, relying on the judgment of CIT vs. Vinay Cement Ltd. (2007) 213 CTR (SC) 268 and CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. 321 ITR 508 (Del.), the addition was rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A), which does not need any interference on our part, therefore, we uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and reject the ground raised by the Revenue.” 7. It is undisputed that both the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) has followed order of their predecessor in…

JCIT, Special Range-1, New Delhi vs. Adm Agro Inds. India P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5737/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5737/Del./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Jcit, Vs Adm Agro Inds. India Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-1, 807, New Delhi House, New Delhi-110002 Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahca6963E Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Cit Dr & Sh. Sanjog Kapoor, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.11.2019

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR &
Section 14Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…Income Tax Return on 9.11.2011 and 05.04.2012. Since, the amounts have already been paid before filing of the return as provided under section 36(1)(va) the Income Tax Act and keeping in view the judgment of Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT Vs AIMLI Ltd. 321 ITR 508, wherein the Hon’ble High Court allowed the deduction of payment of employees contribution towards the PF before filing of the return, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed. 5. Ground No. 2 deals with disallowance of Rs. 176,88,619/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14 of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. The…

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

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7923/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2019AY 2014-15
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 24Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘I-2’ NEW DELHI SH. R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Unitech Ltd., Vs DCIT, Basement, 6, Community Centre, Circle-27(1) Saket, Delhi-110017 New Delhi PAN : AAACU1482H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Rohit Tiwari, Adv., Ms. Kanika Jain, Adv. Respondent by Sh. H.K.Choudhary, CIT- DR Date of Hearing 17.09.2019 Date of Pronouncement 10.10.2019 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed against the order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by DCIT, Circle 27(1),…

Shardlow India Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 250/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.250/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Shardlow India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Huzur Gardens, Madhavaram High Vs. Income Tax, Road, Perambur, Chennai – 600 011. Corporate Circle – 6(1), Chennai. [Pan: Aaacs 5048P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri J. Pavitran Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.10.2019 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)-16, Chennai Dated 28.11.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 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 Employees Contribution Towards Epf/Esi.

For Respondent: Shri J. Pavitran Kumar, JCIT
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…

Softsmith Infotech Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward6(3), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 249/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.248 & 249/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Softsmith Infotech Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, 766, Sakthi Towers, Tower-Ii, Vs. Ward – 6(3), 5Th Floor, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aaecs 9238H] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Pavitran Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.10.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai Both Dated 30.11.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised In The Appeals Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made In Respect Of Employees Contribution Towards Epf/Esi.

For Appellant: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pavitran Kumar, JCIT
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. Aimil 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…

Softsmith Infotech Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward6(3), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 248/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.248 & 249/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Softsmith Infotech Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, 766, Sakthi Towers, Tower-Ii, Vs. Ward – 6(3), 5Th Floor, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aaecs 9238H] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Pavitran Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.10.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai Both Dated 30.11.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised In The Appeals Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made In Respect Of Employees Contribution Towards Epf/Esi.

For Appellant: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pavitran Kumar, JCIT
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. Aimil 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…

Khimji K.D. Sons Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 269/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.269/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Khimji K.D. Sons Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Plot No.621/A, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar Janpath, Bhubaneswar Pin-751007 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aabck 3660 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Bivek Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…s are in favour of the assessee allowing deduction of employee’s contribution paid beyond due date: (i) CIT vs. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 1 (Bom) (ii) CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transport Limited – 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) (iii) CIT vs. Aimil Ltd. – 321 ITR 508 (Del.) (iv) Spectrum Consultants India (P) Ltd vs CIT – 215 Taxman 597 (Kar.) (v) CIT vs. Raj Agro Industries Ltd. – 334 ITR 122 (P&H) o (vi) CIT vs. Kichha Sugar Co. Ltd. – 356 ITR 351 (Uttarakhand) (vii) CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. – 366 ITR 163 (Raj.) 6 6. In following decisions, the Hon’ble High Courts strictly interpre…

Milind Gupta, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-5(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2013-14 is partly

ITA 382/CTK/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Jagabandhu Sahu/Goutam Sahu, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…are in favour of the assessee allowing deduction of employee’s contribution paid beyond due date: (i) CIT vs. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 1 (Bom) (ii) CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transport Limited – 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) (iii) CIT vs. Aimil Ltd. – 321 ITR 508 (Del.) P a g e 2 | 11 ITA Nos. 382 & 383/CTK/2017 Asse ssment Years : 2 031 -14 & 20 14- 15 (iv) Spectrum Consultants India (P) Ltd vs CIT – 215 Taxman 597 (Kar.) (v) CIT vs. Raj Agro Industries Ltd. – 334 ITR 122 (P&H) o (vi) CIT vs. Kichha Sugar Co. Ltd. – 356 ITR 351 (Uttarakhand) o (vii) CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd.…

Clayfin Technologies Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 3(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1072/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 435

…on 435 and amendment to first proviso by Finance Act, 2003 are curative in nature and are effective retrospectively, i.e., with effect from 1.4.1988 i.e., the date of insertion of first proviso. The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V. Amil Ltd. reported in 321 ITR 508 held that if the assessee had deposited employee’s contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI after due date as prescribed under the relevant Act, but before the due date of filing of return under the Income Tax Act, no disallowance could be made in view of the provisions of Section 435 as amended by Finance Act, 2003. 6. In the present case, th…

Clayfin Technologies Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 3(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1071/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 435

…on 435 and amendment to first proviso by Finance Act, 2003 are curative in nature and are effective retrospectively, i.e., with effect from 1.4.1988 i.e., the date of insertion of first proviso. The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V. Amil Ltd. reported in 321 ITR 508 held that if the assessee had deposited employee’s contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI after due date as prescribed under the relevant Act, but before the due date of filing of return under the Income Tax Act, no disallowance could be made in view of the provisions of Section 435 as amended by Finance Act, 2003. 6. In the present case, th…

DCIT, Corp Cir-2(1), Chennai vs. Florind Uppers Pvt Ltd, Chennai

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

ITA 118/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.118/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14

For Appellant: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: None
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…on 43B and amendment to first proviso by Finance Act, 2003 are curative in nature and are effective retrospectively, i.e., with effect from 1.4.1988 i.e., the date of insertion of first proviso. The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V. Amil Ltd. reported in 321 ITR 508 held that if the assessee had deposited employee's contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI after due date as prescribed under the relevant Act, but before the due date of filing of return under the Income Tax Act, no disallowance could be made in view of the provisions of Section 43B as amended by Finance Act, 2003. 6. In the present case, th…

DCIT, Corp Cir-1(2), Chennai vs. Best & Crompton Engg Ltd, Chennai

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

ITA 3179/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3179 /Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Best & Crompton Engg. Limited, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(2), Vs. No. 28, Sidco Industrial Estate, Chennai 600 034. Ambattur, Chennai 600 058. [Pan:Aaacb2753N] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. Cit अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.07.2019 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 30.07.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Only Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Made In Respect Of Employees Contribution Towards Pf/Esi.

For Respondent: None
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…

M/S. Unitech Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed and the 2 appeals preferred by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1907/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri O.P.Kant & Shri K. Narsimha Chary

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit TiwariFor Respondent: Sh. S.S.Rana, CIT DR
Section 142Section 2

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI O.P.KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARSIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.Nos.1905, 1906 &1907/Del/2017 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2012-13, 2013-14 M/s Unitech Limited, vs DCIT, C/o-Luthra & Luthra, Circle-27(1), Law Offices, 103, New Delhi. Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. PAN –AAACU1482H (Applicant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 6437 & 4781/Del/2017 Assessment Years-2012-13 & 2013-14 ACIT, vs M/s. Unitech Ltd., Circle-27(1), Room No.193, 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017. C.R.Building, New Delhi. PAN –AAACU1482H (App…

M/S. Unitech Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed and the 2 appeals preferred by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1906/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri O.P.Kant & Shri K. Narsimha Chary

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit TiwariFor Respondent: Sh. S.S.Rana, CIT DR
Section 142Section 2

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI O.P.KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARSIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.Nos.1905, 1906 &1907/Del/2017 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2012-13, 2013-14 M/s Unitech Limited, vs DCIT, C/o-Luthra & Luthra, Circle-27(1), Law Offices, 103, New Delhi. Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. PAN –AAACU1482H (Applicant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 6437 & 4781/Del/2017 Assessment Years-2012-13 & 2013-14 ACIT, vs M/s. Unitech Ltd., Circle-27(1), Room No.193, 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017. C.R.Building, New Delhi. PAN –AAACU1482H (App…

M/S. Unitech Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed and the 2 appeals preferred by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1905/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri O.P.Kant & Shri K. Narsimha Chary

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit TiwariFor Respondent: Sh. S.S.Rana, CIT DR
Section 142Section 2

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI O.P.KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARSIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.Nos.1905, 1906 &1907/Del/2017 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2012-13, 2013-14 M/s Unitech Limited, vs DCIT, C/o-Luthra & Luthra, Circle-27(1), Law Offices, 103, New Delhi. Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. PAN –AAACU1482H (Applicant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 6437 & 4781/Del/2017 Assessment Years-2012-13 & 2013-14 ACIT, vs M/s. Unitech Ltd., Circle-27(1), Room No.193, 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017. C.R.Building, New Delhi. PAN –AAACU1482H (App…

ACIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi vs. Unitech Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed and the 2 appeals preferred by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6437/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri O.P.Kant & Shri K. Narsimha Chary

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit TiwariFor Respondent: Sh. S.S.Rana, CIT DR
Section 142Section 2

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI O.P.KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARSIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.Nos.1905, 1906 &1907/Del/2017 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2012-13, 2013-14 M/s Unitech Limited, vs DCIT, C/o-Luthra & Luthra, Circle-27(1), Law Offices, 103, New Delhi. Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. PAN –AAACU1482H (Applicant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 6437 & 4781/Del/2017 Assessment Years-2012-13 & 2013-14 ACIT, vs M/s. Unitech Ltd., Circle-27(1), Room No.193, 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017. C.R.Building, New Delhi. PAN –AAACU1482H (App…