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 367,154 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.

Dy. Comm. of Income-Tax, Kolhapur vs. Shri Chhatrapati Rajaram Ssk Ltd., Kolhapur

In the result, all the appeals are fully/partly allowed for

ITA 538/PUN/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

…Alom 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 27 SSK Group cases deduction if these are deposited albeit belatedly under the respective Acts, but before the du…

Asstt.CIT, Cir.-2, Aurangabad vs. M/S. Vaidyanath Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Pangri

In the result, all the appeals are fully/partly allowed for

ITA 1464/PUN/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

…Alom 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 27 SSK Group cases deduction if these are deposited albeit belatedly under the respective Acts, but before the du…

ACIT, Moradabad vs. M/S. Jubilant Organosyes Ltd., Uttar Pradesh

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 4975/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 43(1)

…B of Act as held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. [(2017) 84 taxmann.com 185(SC)], CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd.: [(2009) 319 ITR 306], and by Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.: [(2010) 321 ITR 508, CIT vs. SPL Industries Ltd. [(2011) 9 taxmann.com 195 (Delhi)], CIT vs. P.M. Electronics Ltd. [(2009) 177 Taxman 1 (Del)]. Further on identical issue in case of assessee for earlier year we have deleted addition/disallowance for same reasons, hence, order of learned CIT – A is confirmed on this ground. Ground number 1 of appeal of AO is dismisse…

ACIT, Moradabad vs. M/S Jubliant Organosys Ltd., Uttar Pradesh

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2596/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 43(1)

…B of Act as held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. [(2017) 84 taxmann.com 185(SC)], CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd.: [(2009) 319 ITR 306], and by Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.: [(2010) 321 ITR 508, CIT vs. SPL Industries Ltd. [(2011) 9 taxmann.com 195 (Delhi)], CIT vs. P.M. Electronics Ltd. [(2009) 177 Taxman 1 (Del)]. Further on identical issue in case of assessee for earlier year we have deleted addition/disallowance for same reasons, hence, order of learned CIT – A is confirmed on this ground. Ground number 1 of appeal of AO is dismisse…

Jubilant Organosys Ltd., Noida vs. Addl. CIT, Moradabad

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2497/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 43(1)

…B of Act as held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. [(2017) 84 taxmann.com 185(SC)], CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd.: [(2009) 319 ITR 306], and by Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.: [(2010) 321 ITR 508, CIT vs. SPL Industries Ltd. [(2011) 9 taxmann.com 195 (Delhi)], CIT vs. P.M. Electronics Ltd. [(2009) 177 Taxman 1 (Del)]. Further on identical issue in case of assessee for earlier year we have deleted addition/disallowance for same reasons, hence, order of learned CIT – A is confirmed on this ground. Ground number 1 of appeal of AO is dismisse…

Rajendra Kumar Sancheti, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1-1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1082/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Filing Income Tax Return In Assessee’S Proprietary Firms M/S. Four Season Restaurant & M/S. Four Season (India) Tours.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena (JCIT)
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jkWo] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1082/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15. cuke Shri Rajendra Kumar Sancheti, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. 263-264, Johari Bazaar, Ward 1(1), Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AGWPS 7304 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) & Shri Gulshan Agarwal (CA) jktLo dh…

Kaavian Systems Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 4(1), Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2899/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 2899/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. PV Dilip Kumar, CA
Section 139(1)Section 36Section 43Section 43B

…ion 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. 1 988 i.e. the date of insert fort 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 dates 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 43.B as amended by Finance Act, 2003. 6. In the present case,…

ACIT, Central Circle - 1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Orissa Manganese & Minerals Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 2153/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

…called for. The reliance is placed on the decision in the case of CIT vs. M/s Coal India Ltd. ITA of 12 2015 dated 12.08.2015; CIT vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd., 319 ITR 306 (SC); CIT vs. Vinay Cement Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR (St.) 1 (SC) and CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd., (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi). In view of above, the appellant pleaded that the AO be directed to delete the disallowances made by him on account of delayed deposit of PF.” (AYs-2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) 23. It is noted from the impugned order that CIT(A) found satisfied that the employee’s contribution was relating to PF & ESI was deposited befor…

ACIT, Central Circle - 1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Orissa Manganese & Minerals Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 2152/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

…called for. The reliance is placed on the decision in the case of CIT vs. M/s Coal India Ltd. ITA of 12 2015 dated 12.08.2015; CIT vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd., 319 ITR 306 (SC); CIT vs. Vinay Cement Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR (St.) 1 (SC) and CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd., (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi). In view of above, the appellant pleaded that the AO be directed to delete the disallowances made by him on account of delayed deposit of PF.” (AYs-2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) 23. It is noted from the impugned order that CIT(A) found satisfied that the employee’s contribution was relating to PF & ESI was deposited befor…

ACIT, Central Circle - 1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Orissa Manganese & Minerals Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 2150/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

…called for. The reliance is placed on the decision in the case of CIT vs. M/s Coal India Ltd. ITA of 12 2015 dated 12.08.2015; CIT vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd., 319 ITR 306 (SC); CIT vs. Vinay Cement Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR (St.) 1 (SC) and CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd., (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi). In view of above, the appellant pleaded that the AO be directed to delete the disallowances made by him on account of delayed deposit of PF.” (AYs-2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) 23. It is noted from the impugned order that CIT(A) found satisfied that the employee’s contribution was relating to PF & ESI was deposited befor…

DCIT Central Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. M/S Orchid Pharma Ltd (Formerly Knows As M/S Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd), Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 651/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 650 & 651/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Orchid Pharma Ltd., Tax, Vs. (Formerly Known As M/S. Orchid Central Circle – 1(1), Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.,) Chennai . 313, Orchid Towers, Valluvar Kottam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aaaco 0402B] (&'यथ(/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Respondent: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

…A r.w.r. 8D. Aggrieved against those orders, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). On the issue of disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va), the CIT(A) allowed the assessee’s appeal relying on the following decisions i. Delhi High Court in AIMIL Ltd (2010) (321 ITR 508) (Delhi) ii. Rajasthan High Court in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2014) (265 CTR 471) (Rajasthan) iii. Uttarakand High Court in Kichha Sugar Co. Ltd (2013) (356 ITR 327) iv. Himachal Pradesh High Court in Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd (2013) (350 ITR 327) v. Bombay High Court in Ghatge Patil Transports (2014) (368 ITR 749) (Bombay) With regard to t…

DCIT Central Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. M/S Orchid Pharma Ltd (Formerly Knows As M/S Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd), Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 650/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 650 & 651/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Orchid Pharma Ltd., Tax, Vs. (Formerly Known As M/S. Orchid Central Circle – 1(1), Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.,) Chennai . 313, Orchid Towers, Valluvar Kottam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aaaco 0402B] (&'यथ(/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Respondent: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

…A r.w.r. 8D. Aggrieved against those orders, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). On the issue of disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va), the CIT(A) allowed the assessee’s appeal relying on the following decisions i. Delhi High Court in AIMIL Ltd (2010) (321 ITR 508) (Delhi) ii. Rajasthan High Court in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2014) (265 CTR 471) (Rajasthan) iii. Uttarakand High Court in Kichha Sugar Co. Ltd (2013) (356 ITR 327) iv. Himachal Pradesh High Court in Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd (2013) (350 ITR 327) v. Bombay High Court in Ghatge Patil Transports (2014) (368 ITR 749) (Bombay) With regard to t…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Peb Steel Lloyd (India) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5610/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.V.S.R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri Naina Soin Kapil, Senior DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘D’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5610/Del./2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) DCIT, Circle 19 (2), vs. M/s. PEB Steel Lloyd (India) Ltd., New Delhi. 2, Punjstar Premises, Kalkaji Indl. Area, Kalkaji, New Delhi – 110 019. (PAN : AAECP0564F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri K.V.S.R. Krishna, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Naina Soin Kapil, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 29.11.2018 Date of Order : 30.11.2018 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : The appellant, DCIT, Circle 19 (2), New Delh…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Andhra Prabha Publications Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1108/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Andhra Prabha Publications Income-Tax, Ltd., Hyderabad. Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad Pan – Aafca 7213B Appellant Respondent Revenue By: Smt. M. Narmada Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao Date Of Hearing: 23/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2018 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am:

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(v)Section 40Section 43B

…position of law that though the assessee paid the contributions towards ESIC and PF beyond the due date, but, before filing of the return of income, no disallowance can be made in this regard. 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 then no disallowance can be made. Accordingly, we uphold the order of CIT(A) on this count and dismiss the grounds raised by the revenue. 13. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Prono…

M/S Martin Spinning Mills & Agencies P Ltd, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-2, Coimbatore

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

ITA 2240/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.Marudhu Pandian, ACIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 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 judg…

M/S Shree Hanuman Loha Pvt Ltd, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Income Tax Officer -1(1), Raipur (Cg)

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

ITA 18/BIL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2012-13 Shree Hanuman Loha Pvt. Ltd., Ito- 1(1), 251/252, Industrial Area, Urla, Raipur (Cg). Vs. Raipur (Cg).

For Appellant: Shri Amit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shree Hanuman Loha Pvt. Ltd., ITO- 1(1), 251/252, Industrial Area, Urla, Raipur (CG). Vs. Raipur (CG). PAN : AABCN5505H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Amit Jain, Adv. Department by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR Date of hearing : 14-08-2018 Date of pronouncement : 14-08-2018 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.11.2015 of the ld. CIT(A)- 1, Raipur (CG) relating to asse…

M/S. Hitrac Manpower Services Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, Gurgaon

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that

ITA 3726/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Joginder Singhdcit, Vs M/S Hitrac Manpower Service Pvt. Circle-2, Ltd. Gurgaon 85, Link Road, Bheem Nagar, Gurgaon, Pan-Aabch4230P Revenue Assessee M/S Hitrac Manpower Service Vs Dcit, Pvt. Ltd. Circle-2, 85, Link Road, Bheem Nagar, Gurgaon Gurgaon, Pan-Aabch4230P Assessee Revenue

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT, & SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT, vs M/s Hitrac Manpower Service Pvt. Circle-2, Ltd. Gurgaon 85, Link Road, Bheem Nagar, Gurgaon, PAN-AABCH4230P Revenue Assessee M/s Hitrac Manpower Service vs DCIT, Pvt. Ltd. Circle-2, 85, Link Road, Bheem Nagar, Gurgaon Gurgaon, PAN-AABCH4230P Assessee Revenue Assessee by Shri Pankaj Manocha Revenue by Shri Arun Kr. Yadav Date of Hearing 01/08/2018 Date of Pronouncement 01/08/2018 ITA Nos.1163 & 3726 /Del/2015 Hitrac Manpower Services Pvt. Ltd. ORDER PER JOGIN…

DCIT, Gurgaon vs. M/S. Hitrac Manpower Services Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that

ITA 1163/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Joginder Singhdcit, Vs M/S Hitrac Manpower Service Pvt. Circle-2, Ltd. Gurgaon 85, Link Road, Bheem Nagar, Gurgaon, Pan-Aabch4230P Revenue Assessee M/S Hitrac Manpower Service Vs Dcit, Pvt. Ltd. Circle-2, 85, Link Road, Bheem Nagar, Gurgaon Gurgaon, Pan-Aabch4230P Assessee Revenue

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT, & SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT, vs M/s Hitrac Manpower Service Pvt. Circle-2, Ltd. Gurgaon 85, Link Road, Bheem Nagar, Gurgaon, PAN-AABCH4230P Revenue Assessee M/s Hitrac Manpower Service vs DCIT, Pvt. Ltd. Circle-2, 85, Link Road, Bheem Nagar, Gurgaon Gurgaon, PAN-AABCH4230P Assessee Revenue Assessee by Shri Pankaj Manocha Revenue by Shri Arun Kr. Yadav Date of Hearing 01/08/2018 Date of Pronouncement 01/08/2018 ITA Nos.1163 & 3726 /Del/2015 Hitrac Manpower Services Pvt. Ltd. ORDER PER JOGIN…

Bliss Tree Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 5(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7546/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Mr. R.S. Syalassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 139(1)Section 43B

…Alom 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 I consider these two judgments, it becomes patent that both the employer’s and employees’ contribution are allowable as deduction if the amount of provident fund etc., though belatedly, but is paid before the due date of filing of ret…

ACIT Corporate Circle 5(2), Chennai vs. R P Telebuy Skyshop Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2595/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Respondent: Shri. M. Veerabathran
Section 2(24)(x)Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)Section 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 01.01.1988 i.e the date of insertion of first proviso. The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. 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 viepw of the provisions of Section 43B as amended by Finance Act, 2003. 6.In the present case, th…