How many judgments cite CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.?

1,629 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. (321 ITR 508), spanning 2010 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 36(1)(va), Section 143(1), Section 1961, Section 43B, Section 139(1), Section 154.

CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.

321 ITR 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 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.

Valuable Infrastructure P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2010-11

ITA 5981/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Anu Krishna Aggarwal

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(X)Section 43BSection 44ASection 8O

…re, the same deserves to be accepted. 5. The Ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue reiterated the objection taken by the CIT(Appeals), which we have adverted to earlier. 6. We have considered the rival stands. In the case of CIT vs. Aimil Limited, 321 ITR 508 (Del) as also in the case of Ghatge Patil Transport, 368 ITR 749(Bom), the Hon’ble Delhi and Bombay High Courts have held that even employee’s contribution towards Provident Fund paid before due date of filing of return of income does not suffer the (Assessment Year : 2010-11) disallowance under section 43B of the Act. In the present case, the ac…

M/S. Strides Arcolab Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. ITO - 10(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s cross objection is partly allowed

ITA 641/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand

Section 115JSection 35

…that view of the matter any amount referred to in section 43B, being the sum payable by the employer shall be allowed as deduction if it is paid before the due date of filing of the return. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Aimil Ltd. [(2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del.)] has held that if employees’ share is deposited before the due date then no disallowance is called for. In reaching this conclusion, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court 19 Strides Shasun Limited Strides Arcolab Limited relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Vinay Cement Ltd. [(2007) 213 CTR (SC) 268] in which…

ACIT Cir 5(3), Mumbai vs. Shree Raj Travels & Tour Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 251/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla"ी राज "ावे"स अँड टूरस "ल"मटेड Acit, Circle 5(3), Vs Room No. 563, Shree Raj Travels & Tours Ltd, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Chowpaty View Building, Mumbai-400 020 Ground Floor, Sukh Nagar, S V P Road, Opera House, Mumbai -400 007 Pan: Aaecs 9760 N अपीलाथ" (Appellant) ""यथ" (Respondent) Appellant By Shri A K Nayak : Respondent By : None सुनवाईक"तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2016 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13-04-2016

For Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(va)Section 2(24)(x)Section 43

…ment to Employees Contribution to Employer’s Provident Fund by the employer is not maintainable in the light of various Tribunal as well as High Court decisions cited in the preceding paras. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Limited [2010] 321 ITR 508 (Del) and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusion Limited 319 ITR 306(SC) and CIT vs Vinay Cements 213 CTR 268 (SC) have held that such disallowances are not maintainable. Under the circumstances, ground of appeal no.2 is allowed”. 4 "ी राज "ावे"स अँड टूरस "ल"मटेड Shree Raj Travels and Tours Ltd ITA 251/M/2013 4. Despite serv…

M/S Michelin India Tyres Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 3355/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 37(1)

…provisions contained u/s 2(24)(x) of the Act disallowed the deduction amounting to Rs.2,44,328/- on account of contribution to EPF on the ground of late deposit. However, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the judgement cited as CIT Vs Aimil Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del.) decided the issue in controversy. The operative part of the judgement supra is reproduced as under: “BUSINESS EXPENDITURE - DEDUCTION ONLY ON ACTUAL PAYMENT - PROVIDENT FUND AND ESI CONTRIBUTIONS MADE BEFORE FILING RETURN - ALLOWABLE - INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, ss. 36(1)(va), 43B The deletion with effect from April 1, 2004 by the Finance Act,…

Dct, New Delhi vs. M/S Steel Authority of India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4279/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri A.T.Varkeya.Y. 2009-10 Steel Authority Of India Ltd. Vs. Acit, Range 9 Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road New Delhi New Delhi 110 003 Pan: Aaacs 7062 F A.Y. 2009-10 Dct, Circle 9(1) Vs. Steel Authority Of India Ltd. New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. M.P.Rastogi &For Respondent: Sh. KK Jaswal, Sr.D.R

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.Y. 2009-10 Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Range 9 Ispat bhawan, Lodhi road New Delhi New Delhi 110 003 PAN: AAACS 7062 F A.Y. 2009-10 DCT, Circle 9(1) vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. M.P.Rastogi & Sh.PN Shastri, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. KK Jaswal, Sr.D.R. ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT These are Cross appeals and are directed against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), New Delhi…

M/S Steel Authority of India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3867/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. M.P.Rastogi &For Respondent: Sh. KK Jaswal, Sr.D.R

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 43B

Industrial Security and Intelligence India P Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

ITA 2547/CHNY/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri S. S. Godara] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2547/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri A.S. Sriraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

…urn. We find that a co- ordinate bench of the 'tribunal' in assessee’s own case I.T.A.No.2048 & 2049/Mds/2014 for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 in its order dated 31.10.2014, has relied on the decision of hon'ble Delhi high court in CIT vs Amil Ltd, 321 ITR 508 and holds that section 43B disallowance cannot be invoked in identical circumstances. The Revenue fails to point out any distinction on facts. Thus, we follow the I.T.A.No.2547/14 :- 6 -: aforesaid decision and accept the assessee’s contentions on merits. The impugned disallowance is deleted. 5. The assessee’s appel is allowed on merits. Ord…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd

ITA - 2084 / 2010HC Delhi03 Jan 2011

Section 2Section 32Section 43

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . 03.01.2011 . . Present: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant/Department. Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate for the respondent assessee. . + ITA 2084/2010 . After hearing the counsel for the parties, we admit the appeal on the following substantial questions of law:- ?(i) Whether the ITAT was correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs 54 lac made by the Assessing Officer on account of interest free deposits received by the assessee from shops? . (ii) Whether the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the int…

CIT vs. Spl Industries Ltd

In the result, we do not perceive any merit

ITA/794/2010HC Delhi07 Jul 2010

Bench: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

Section 143(2)Section 14BSection 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…hese findings of ld. CIT(A) are incorrect rather table reproduced in the assessment order clearly shows that all the payments have been made before the due date of filing the return. Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. P.M. Electronics Ltd., 313 ITR 161 (Del.) has held that if the payments are made before the due date of filing the return, no such disallowance can be made under Section 43B. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) vide which the relief has been given to assessee. We decline to interfere.” 5. Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, learned counsel for the revenue submitted…