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 366,470 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.

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Page Point Service (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3987/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Sudeep Vijayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Pramita Tripathi, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153CSection 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)

…d ESI on due date of deposit as provided under the law but deposited before filing the return is allowable expenditure?” 11. Issue in controversy has already been set at rest by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in cases cited as CIT vs. AIMIL Limited – 321 ITR 508 (Del.) and CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. – 313 ITR 137 (Bom.) by deciding in favour of the assessee. The ratio of the judgment in case of CIT vs. AIMIL (supra) is reproduced as under :- “Case Note : Direct Taxation - Deduction - Contribution to ESI - Present appeal has been filed against order whereby revenue's appeal against order disallowance ma…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Page Point Service (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3985/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Sudeep Vijayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Pramita Tripathi, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153CSection 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)

…d ESI on due date of deposit as provided under the law but deposited before filing the return is allowable expenditure?” 11. Issue in controversy has already been set at rest by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in cases cited as CIT vs. AIMIL Limited – 321 ITR 508 (Del.) and CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. – 313 ITR 137 (Bom.) by deciding in favour of the assessee. The ratio of the judgment in case of CIT vs. AIMIL (supra) is reproduced as under :- “Case Note : Direct Taxation - Deduction - Contribution to ESI - Present appeal has been filed against order whereby revenue's appeal against order disallowance ma…

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Venkateswara Wires Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 762/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl. CIT-. DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 36(10)(va)Section 43B

…n 43B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return." 8. Following the observations of the hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinay Cement (supra), the Delhi High Court in CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) held at page 518 as under : "We may only add that if the employees' contribution is not deposited by the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts and is deposited late, the employer not only pays interest on delayed payment but can incur penalties also, for which specific provisions are made in the Provident Funds Act as well as the Em…

ITO, Jaipur vs. Professional H R Services Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1120/JPR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2017AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(10)(va)Section 43B

…n 43B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return." 8. Following the observations of the hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinay Cement (supra), the Delhi High Court in CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) held at page 518 as under : "We may only add that if the employees' contribution is not deposited by the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts and is deposited late, the employer not only pays interest on delayed payment but can incur penalties also, for which specific provisions are made in the Provident Funds Act as well as the Em…

Infrasoft Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5287/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amrit Lal, Senior DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)(ii)

…TA No.5287/Del./2012 amendment would be treated retrospectively from 01.04.1998 and the amount of Rs.2,63,477/- deposited on 14.11.2003 is allowable. 14. Issue in controversy has been dealt with by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. AIMIL Limited – 321 ITR 508. The ratio of the judgment in case of CIT vs. AIMIL Limited (supra) is that in case of AY 2002-03, the deposit of employees contribution on account of PF and ESI after due date as prescribed under the relevant Act/Rules but before the due date for filing the return under Income-tax Act, no disallowance can be made in view of the provisions cont…

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Hidesign India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 2496/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 2496/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Hidesign India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(2) , Vs. Old. No. 57/4, New No. 2, Anugraha Room No. 512, 5Th Floor, Wanaparthy Apartments, 1St Street, Kamarajar Block, 121, M.G. Road, Avenue, Adyar, Chennai 600 020. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aacch0586R] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: None
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)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 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…

M/S DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Planman Hr Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5028/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. V. Mehrotra & Ms. Suchitra Kambledcit Vs Planman Hr Pvt. Ltd. Circle 20(1) 48, Community Center, New Delhi Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi – 110028 Aafcp0981K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT vs Planman HR Pvt. Ltd. Circle 20(1) 48, Community Center, New Delhi Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi – 110028 AAFCP0981K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Deepak Garg, SR. DR Respondent by Sh. Ved Jain & Mrs. Rano Jain, Adv. Date of Hearing 23.01.2017 Date of Pronouncement 23.01.2017 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order dated 12/07/2016 for A.Y. 2013-14 passed by CIT(A)-7, New Delhi. 2. T…

M/S Balance Clothing Private Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4830/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: SH. SURINDER KUMAR, CA &For Respondent: SH. ANIL SHARMA, SR. DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…t since the assessee has deposited the Employees Contribution of PF and ESIC late in some months, hence, the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the similar decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Aimil Limited reported in (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del). In this behalf, he filed the copy of the said decision. Therefore, he requested that by following the same reasoning, the addition in dispute may be deleted and accordingly, the appeal of the assessee may be allowed. 6. On the contrary, Ld. Sr. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 7. I have heard both the parties and p…

ITO, Jaipur vs. S. Brothers Facilities Management, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 957/JPR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jan 2017AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Anil Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha, Addl.CIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…n 43B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return." 8. Following the observations of the hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinay Cement (supra), the Delhi High Court in CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) held at page 518 as under : "We may only add that if the employees' contribution is not deposited by the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts and is deposited late, the employer not only pays interest on delayed payment but can incur penalties also, for which specific provisions are made in the Provident Funds Act as well as the Em…

Laxmi Narayan Yadava, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 4973/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal

For Appellant: Shri Satish Kumar Dhingra, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, DR
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…assessee voluntarily disallowed a sum of Rs.8,01,463/- in his return of income on account of late deposit of ESI and PF, etc. u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. Upon the advent of the judgment by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Aimil Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del), the assessee claimed before the AO that since the amount of ESI and EPF etc., was deposited before the due date u/s 139(1) of the Act and, hence, the same should be allowed as deduction. The AO denied this claim by observing that such a claim was not entertainable otherwise than through a revised return. For this proposition, he relied on…

Acterna India (P) Ltd vs. ITO Ward-1 (1)

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

ITA 493/DEL/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2016AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri K.N. Chary, Jm Assessment Year : 2002-03 Viavi Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, (Formerly Acterna India Private Ward-1(1), Lijmited) New Delhi. 25/38, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi – 110 008. Pan : Aaacw0654M

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, DR
Section 139(1)Section 43B

…m 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 ITA No.493/Del/2006 5 the due date. When we 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…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Best & Crompton Engineering Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 368/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.368/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Best & Crompton Engineering Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.28, Sidco Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle – 1(2), Ambattur, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaacb 2753 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCITFor Respondent: None
Section 14A

…(2009) 313 ITR 414, allowed the claim of the assessee. The Ld. D.R. submitted that he is placing his reliance on the observation made by the Assessing Officer. 4. (supra). The CIT(Appeals) has also referred to the judgment of Delhi High Court in AIMIL Ltd. (321 ITR 508). In view of the judgment of Madras High Court in Nexus Computer (P) Ltd. (supra), 3 I.T.A. No.368/Mds/16 this Tribunal has no reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly, the same is confirmed. 5. The next ground of appeal is with regard to disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A of the Ac…

ACIT, Tambaram vs. Jahan Leather Exports, Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1964/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri A.S.Sriraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCIT
Section 40

…gence India Pvt.Ltd. (supra). The Madras High Court after relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 306 and also the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amil Ltd. reported in 321 ITR 508 found that in case the assessee deposited the employees contribution towards provident fund and ESI after the due date prescribed under the relevant act but before the due date of filing of return of income under Income Tax Act, no disallowance could not be made in view of Section 43B of the Act. This judgment of the Madras High Court is bindin…

ACIT, Tambaram vs. Jahan Leather Exports, Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1963/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri A.S.Sriraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCIT
Section 40

…gence India Pvt.Ltd. (supra). The Madras High Court after relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 306 and also the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amil Ltd. reported in 321 ITR 508 found that in case the assessee deposited the employees contribution towards provident fund and ESI after the due date prescribed under the relevant act but before the due date of filing of return of income under Income Tax Act, no disallowance could not be made in view of Section 43B of the Act. This judgment of the Madras High Court is bindin…

ACIT, Tambaram vs. Jahan Leather Exports, Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1962/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri A.S.Sriraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCIT
Section 40

…gence India Pvt.Ltd. (supra). The Madras High Court after relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 306 and also the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amil Ltd. reported in 321 ITR 508 found that in case the assessee deposited the employees contribution towards provident fund and ESI after the due date prescribed under the relevant act but before the due date of filing of return of income under Income Tax Act, no disallowance could not be made in view of Section 43B of the Act. This judgment of the Madras High Court is bindin…

M/S the Dream Development Co., Purba Medinipur vs. ITO, WD-27(1), Haldia

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1021/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ] Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. The Dream Development Company -Versus- I.T.O., Ward-27(1), Purba Medinipur Haldia [Pan: Aafft 2851 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate For The Respondent : Md.Ghayas Uddin, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 29.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2016

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md.Ghayas Uddin, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…e of the view that there is merit in the submissions of the ld. AR for the assessee , as the propositions canvassed by the ld. AR for the assessee are supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble ITAT, Kolkata in ITA No.1410/Kol/.2011 and CIT vs AIMIL Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del). Therefore we are of the view that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. (referred to supra) has held that the appellate authority being the Tribunal have the power to direct the AO to accept the claim of the assessee though the same has not been made in the original return nor has been done in the revised return. In th…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. W.S.Industries (India) Limited, Chennai

ITA 966/CHNY/2005[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार",लेखा सद"य एवं "ीजी. पवन कुमार,"या"यकसद"यकेसम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.966/Mds/2005 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2001-2002 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s. W.S. Industries (India) Ltd, Income Tax, Vs. No.108, Mount Poonamallee Road, Company Circle III(3) Porur, Chennai 600 116. Chennai-34 [PAN AAACW 0572E] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1840/Mds/2005 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2001-2002 The Assistant Commissioner M/…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. S.S.B.Industries Limited Now Amalgamated With M/S.W.S.Industries (India) Limited, Chennai

ITA 1840/CHNY/2005[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार",लेखा सद"य एवं "ीजी. पवन कुमार,"या"यकसद"यकेसम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.966/Mds/2005 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2001-2002 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s. W.S. Industries (India) Ltd, Income Tax, Vs. No.108, Mount Poonamallee Road, Company Circle III(3) Porur, Chennai 600 116. Chennai-34 [PAN AAACW 0572E] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1840/Mds/2005 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2001-2002 The Assistant Commissioner M/…

Anil Agarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4915/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Anil K. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : SMC-I : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2010-11 Anil Agarwal, Vs. ACIT, C/o S.P. Jain & Associates, Circle-II, F-83(GF), Green Park (Main), Muzaffarnagar. New Delhi. PAN: ACFPA3783K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anil K. Jain, Advocate Department By : Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 08.08.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 08.08.2016 ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 25.06.2014 in relation to the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The only is…

Vgn Infra India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1082/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)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 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 :- 6 -: 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.’’ We respectfull…