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 367,164 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.

Paris Elysees India Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 357/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: FixedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri James Kurian (CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e in favour of the assessee and the other in favour of Revenue; more closely. If the view in favour of the assessee, that the aforesaid amendments are prospective, is accepted; then the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in the cases of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. 321 ITR 508 (Delhi); and CIT vs. P.M. Electronics Ltd. 313 ITR 161 (Delhi) continue to hold good for Assessment Years to which these appeals before us, pertain. Accordingly, the view taken by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in these cases, that delayed payments of employees contribution of provident fund and ESI [payment made after stipulated dates prescribed under…

Nimbus Pipes Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 384/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Badaya (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri R.S. Meel (JCIT)

Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 384/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2019-20 cuke Nimbus Pipes Limited ACIT, Vs. E-35, RIICO Industrial Area Ext Circle-4, Jaipur. Bagru, Jaipur-303007. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AADCN 1836 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rohit Badaya (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@…

United Security Solution Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC Ward- 27(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 535/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: N o n e

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…I.T.A. No. 535/Del/2021 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “H” : DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 535/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19. United Security Solution DCIT, बनाम Pvt. Ltd., CPC Vs. C/o. Kapil Goel, Advocate, Ward : 27 (1), F-26/124, Sector : 7, New Delhi. Rohini, Delhi – 110 085. PAN No. AABCU7718B अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by : N o n e; राज"वक"ओरसे / Department by Shri R. K. Jain, Sr. D. R.; : 07/02/2023 सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing : 07…

B4S Solution P.Ltd, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2187/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali

Section 10(34)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…1 M/s. B4S Solution P. Ltd., G’bad IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2187/DEL/2022 (A.Y 2018-19) B4S Solution Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT, Ch. No. 206-207, Circle : 4 (2) Ansal Satyam, RDC, New Delhi. Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201 002. (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCB4705D (APPELLANT) Assessee by : Shri Abhishek Agarwal, Advocate; Department by: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R.; Date of Hearing 23.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement 06 .02.2023 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM This…

Prisma, Moradabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Moradabad

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

ITA 1197/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

For Appellant: N o n e

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

…I.T.A. No. 1197/Del/2022 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “S.M.C.” : DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, S.M.C. आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 1197/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19. Prisma, Income Tax Officer, बनाम Behind Hotel 24, Ward : 1 (1), Vs. Delhi Road, Moradabad, Moradabad. Uttar Pradesh – 244 001. PAN No. AARFP4612N अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by : N o n e; राज"वक"ओरसे / Department by Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. D. R.; : 30/11/2022 सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing : 31/01/2023 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement on : आदेश / O R D…

Navodia Times Private Limited, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is

ITA 192/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 250oSection 36

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.192/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Navodaya Times Private Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Civil Lines, Jalandhar, Punjab. Income Tax, Circle-1, [PAN: AAECN9393A] Jalandhar. (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by Sh. Sandeep Vijh, CA Respondent by Ms. Priyanka Singla, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 26.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement 31.01.2023 ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissione…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Korba vs. M/S. Dee Vee Project Ltd., Korba

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed/partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 69/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.69/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle, Korba (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Dee Vee Project Ltd. First Floor, Vikas Complex, P.H. Road, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Aaecd4619B ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Chand Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

…d proviso to Section 43B - was introduced to ensure timely payments were made by the employer to the concerned fund (EPF, ESI, etc.) and avoid the mischief of employers retaining amounts for long periods. That Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Aimil Ltd., [2010] 321 ITR 508 (Delhi High Court). Commissioner of Income-Tax and another Vs. Sabari Enterprises, [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Karnataka High Court). Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd., [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bombay High Court). Commissioner of Income-Tax, Udaipur v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sandh Ltd., [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616 (Rajasthan High Court).…

Fil India Business & Research Services P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Dc, Circle-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1358/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Chandra Mohan Gargfil India Business & Vs. Dc Research Services P. Ltd., Circle – 7(1) Private Studio – New Delhi Ncr/Ac/Ps/00/010B, Ground Floor, Worldmark 1, Asset Area 11, Aerocity, Hospitality District, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi-110 002 Pan : Aabcf 1572 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri K. M. Gupta, Adv. Shri Rishabh Malhotra, A.R. & Shri Bhavya Gupta, C.A. Revenue By Shri Amaresh Singh, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.01.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ments and correspondence to PF authorities before the AO & DRP as it was of the opinion that since the amounts were deposited before the filing of return of income, no disallowance was warranted in the light of the decision rendered in the case of AIMIL Ltd. (321 ITR 508). He submitted that due to change in circumstances on account of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court, the additional evidences are submitted, which may be taken on record. He therefore, submitted that the addition on account of PF delayed be deleted. Learned AR thereafter fairly 8 conceded that out of the total disallowance made by AO, with respe…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-7 vs. Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd

ITA - 12 / 2023HC Delhi12 Jan 2023

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)

…16.08.2018, as the due date fell on a national holiday i.e., 15.08.2018? 7. The Tribunal, based on judgments which hold the field, including the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax versus AIMIL Limited (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del.) and another judgment dated 10.09.2018 delivered by this Court in ITA No.983/2018, titled PCIT vs Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt.Ltd., ruled in favour of the respondent/assessee. 7.1 In sum, the Tribunal concluded, in line with the aforesaid judgments, that since the amounts in issue had been deposited before filing of income…

Shri Dharmendra Hirubhai Patel, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangluru, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 139/SRT/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.139/Srt/2021 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Dharmendra Hirubhai Patel, Vs. The Dcit, Cpc, Motawada Steet, At & Po. Hazira, Bangluru. Tal: Choryasi, Surat – 394270. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amhpp6575A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Deven Kapadia, Ar Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/01/2023 10/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 41Section 43Section 43B

…roviso to Section 43B - was introduced to ensure timely payments were made by the employer to the concerned fund (EPF, ESI, etc.) and avoid the mischief of employers retaining amounts for long periods. That 24 Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Aimil Ltd., [2010] 321 ITR 508 (Delhi High Court). 25 Commissioner of Income-Tax and another Vs. Sabari Enterprises, [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Karnataka High Court). 26 Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd., [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bombay High Court). 27 Commissioner of Income-Tax, Udaipur v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sandh Ltd., [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616 (Rajasthan Hig…

Hotel Miramar, Daman vs. Assistnt Commissioner of Income Tax, Vapi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 129/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.129/Srt/2021 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) Hotel Miramar, Vs. The Acit, Vapi Circle, Devka Beach, Nani Daman, Vapi. Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (U.T). (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabfh5561Q Assessee By Shri Kaushani Shah Proxy Ca For Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 19/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short ‘The Nfac’], Delhi, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer, Central Processing Centre (Cpc), Bengaluru, Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Dated 15.04.2019. 2. At The Outset, Learned Counsel For The Assessee Fairly Agreed That The Issue In This Appeal Pertains To Employees’ Contribution To Provident Fund & Esic, Which Is Squarely Covered Against The Assessee By The Judgment Of Hon'Ble Supreme Court In Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., In Civil Application No.2833 Of 2016, Dated 12.10.2022. 3. On The Other Hand, The Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. Dr) For The Revenue Also Agreed That The Present Assessee’S Appeal Is Covered Against The Ita 129/Srt/2021/Ay.2017-18 Hotel Miramar

Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 41Section 43Section 43B

M/S. Rajputana Stainless Ltd., Panchmahal vs. The Principal CIT, (Central), Surat at Vadodara, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in above terms

ITA 114/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.114/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) Rajputana Stainless Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of 213, Madhvas, Halol Kalol Road, Income Tax (Central), Surat At Vs. Kalol, Panchmahal-389330 Vadod "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacr 9333 G (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mrs. Kinjal Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli-CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 41Section 43Section 43B

Gannon Dunkerley & Co Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2228/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd, Dy. Cit, Circle-1(1)(1), 3Rd Floor, New Excelsior Aayakar Bhavan, Building Ak Nayak Marg, Fort, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 001. Pan No. Aaacg 1846 P Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Babulal Sharma, Ar : Revenue By Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao Deshmukh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/12/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Babulal Sharma, AR

Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…t the same time, on the identical issue the But at the same time, on the identical issue the But at the same time, on the identical issue the following decisions are in following decisions are in favour of assessee. i. favour of assessee. i. AIMIL Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del.), ii. State Bank of Bikaner Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del.), ii. State Bank of Bikaner Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del.), ii. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [(2014) 363 ITR 70 (Rajasthan)]. ii. Essae & Jaipur [(2014) 363 ITR 70 (Rajasthan)]. ii. Essae & Jaipur [(2014) 363 ITR 70 (Rajasthan)]. ii. Essae Teraoka (P) Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 408 and iv…

Royal Furnisher, Jammu vs. Assesing Officer Ward- 2 (2), Jammu

In the result appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 54/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250oSection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…just in a taxpayer escaping if the letter of the law fails to catch him on account of the legislature's failure to express itself clearly.'" 51. The analysis of the various judgments cited on behalf of the assessee i.e.,CIT v. Aimil Ltd. [2010] 188 Taxman 265/321 ITR 508 (Delhi); CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); CIT v. Udaipur DugdhUtpadakSahakari Sangh Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616/217 Taxman 64 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 163 and NipsoPolyfabriks (supra) would reveal that in all these cases, the High Courts principally relied upon omission of s…

Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints Private Limited, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-2, Surat

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

ITA 58/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.58/Srt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pcit-2, A-26, Central Park, Gidc, Pandesara Surat. S.O., Pandesara, Surat-394221. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamcs4421L

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

…oviso to Section 43B - was introduced to ensure timely payments were made by the employer to the concerned fund (EPF, ESI, etc.) and avoid the mischief of employers retaining amounts for long periods. That 24 Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs. Aimil Ltd., [2010] 321 ITR 508 (Delhi High Court). 25 Commissioner of Income-Tax and another Vs. Sabari Enterprises, [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Karnataka High Court). 26 Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd., [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bombay High Court). 27 Commissioner of Income-Tax, Udaipur v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sandh Ltd., [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616 (Rajasthan Hig…

M/S. Suresh Electricals, Bellary vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 724/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Suresh Electricals, Vs. Dcit, Ward No.25, Cmc T. S. No.227, Tilak Cpc, Nagar, Khb Colony, Bengaluru. Bellary – 583 101. Pan : Abyfs 9751 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. B. S. Balachandran, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2022 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Nfac, Delhi, Dated 12.07.2022, Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Only Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Revenue Authorities Were Justified In Disallowing Payment Made To Esi/Pf Being Employees’ Share Of Contribution Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). 3. In This Regard, It Is Pertinent To Note That The Employee Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Was Promulgated To Provide For Such Institution Of Provident Funds, Pension Fund & Deposit-Linked Insurance Fund For Employees In Factories & Other Establishments. It Aims To Build Adequate Retirement Corpus For The Salaried Class Of Employees. The Fund Includes Contributions From The Employer & Employee Both, Page 2 Of 14

For Appellant: Shri. B. S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…paid belatedly but within due date prescribed u/s.139(1) of the Act should be allowed as deduction on payment basis u/s 43B at par with employers' contribution to PF/ESI. The following are such judicial pronouncements; CIT vs. Aimil Ltd. [2010] 188 Taxman 265/321 ITR 508 (Delhi HC) Pr. CIT vs. Plamman HR (P) Ltd., [IT Appeal No. 170 of 2018, dated 12.02.2018 (Delhi HC) CIT v. NipsoPloyfabriks Ltd. [2013 350 ITR 327 (HP) Sagun Foundry (P) Ltd. V. CIT (2017) 78 taxmann.com 47 (all) CIT vs. Udaipur Dugh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd., [2014] 366 ITR 163/[2013] 217 Taxman 64 (Mag.)/35 taxmannn.com 616 (Raj.) CIT v. Sabar…

Bhoruka Fabcons Private Limited, Mysuru vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 910/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Bhoruka Fabcons Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, No.427E, Hebbal Industrial Area, Cpc, Mysuru – 570 016. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaccb 9377 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Bhargava S. N, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2022 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Nfac, Delhi, Dated 28.07.2022, Relating To Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Only Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Revenue Authorities Were Justified In Disallowing Payment Made To Esi/Pf Being Employees’ Share Of Contribution Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). 3. In This Regard, It Is Pertinent To Note That The Employee Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Was Promulgated To Provide For Such Institution Of Provident Funds, Pension Fund & Deposit-Linked Insurance Fund For Employees In Factories & Other Establishments. It Aims To Build Adequate Retirement Corpus For The Salaried Class Of Employees. The Fund Includes Contributions From The Employer & Employee Both, Calculated In The Prescribed Manner Under The Relevant Act. As Per Page 2 Of 13

For Appellant: Shri. Bhargava S. N, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

Chase Security, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 796/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Chase Security, Vs. The Ito, No.16/A, 1St Floor, Millar Tank Bund Ward – 6(3)(1), Cpc, Road, Vasanth Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 052. Pan : Aaefc 2412 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sheethal Borkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2022 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Dated 29.04.2021 By The Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Only Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Revenue Authorities Were Justified In Disallowing Payment Made To Esi/Pf Being Employees’ Share Of Contribution Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). 3. In This Regard, It Is Pertinent To Note That The Employee Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Was Promulgated To Provide For Such Institution Of Provident Funds, Pension Fund & Deposit-Linked Insurance Fund For Employees In Factories & Other Establishments. It Aims To Build Adequate Retirement Corpus For The Salaried Class Of Employees. The Fund Includes Contributions From The Employer & Employee Both, Page 2 Of 14

For Appellant: Smt. Sheethal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

Vinod Kumar Tandon, Allahabad vs. DCIT(CPC), Begaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 29/ALLD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad22 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234BSection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ping if the letter of the law fails to catch him on account of the legislature's failure to 14 Vinod Kumar Tandon express itself clearly.'" 51. The analysis of the various judgments cited on behalf of the assessee i.e., CIT v. Aimil Ltd. [2010] 188 Taxman 265/321 ITR 508 (Delhi); CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616/217 Taxman 64 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 163 and Nipso Polyfabriks (supra) would reveal that in all these cases, the High Courts principally relied upon omission o…

Cube Constructions Engineering Ltd., Vadodara vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-(Central), Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 86/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Cube Constructions Engineering The Pr.Cit, Limited, (Central), Vs. 1, Chandamani Nagar, Vidhya Surat. Vihar, Subhanpura, Vadodara, 390020. Pan No. Aaccc 8103 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 35(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ii) CIT Vs Kicha Sugar Company Ltd. (Uttrakhand High Court) ITA No. 3108/Del/2010, ITA No. 4702/Del/2009, ITA No. 4621/Del/2011 (iii) DCIT Vs Page Point Service (India) Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 3984/Del/2013 (date of pronouncement 22/05/2015) (iv) CIT Vs Aimil Ltd. 321 ITR 508 (Del) (v) CIT Vs Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. ITA No. 399 of 2012 (Bombay High Court) 6. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submits that the grounds of appeal raised by assessee is squarely covered against the assessee by the recent decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Private Limited Vs CIT in Civi…