CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. & Ors.

229 CTR 418High Court2010#11312 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2018.

Judgments citing CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. & Ors.

DCIT, CC-1(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Rungta Mines Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1653/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tiwari, CITFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 3Section 37(1)Section 73

…section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 19. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) directed the AO to allow the claim of the assessee for deduction and in doing so, the CIT(A) followed the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs AIMIL Ltd. & Ors. 229 CTR 418 (Del) wherein it was held that employees’ contribution to PF should be allowed as deduction which is paid on or before the due date of filing the return of income u/s 139 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the revenue has raised ground no.2 before the Tribunal. ITA No.1653/Kol/2016 M/s. Rungta Mines Private Ltd. A.Y.2013-14 20. At the…

DCIT, CC-193, Kolkata vs. M/S Rungta Sons Private Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1652/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 3Section 37(1)Section 73

…section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 19. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) directed the AO to allow the claim of the assessee for deduction and in doing so, the CIT(A) followed the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs AIMIL Ltd. & Ors. 229 CTR 418 (Del) wherein it was held that employees’ contribution to PF should be allowed as deduction which is paid on or before the due date of filing the return of income u/s 139 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the revenue has raised ground no.2 before the Tribunal. ITA No.1652/Kol/2016 M/s. Rungta Sons Private Ltd. A.Y.2013-14 20. At the t…

M/S. Narayani Sons. Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT, CC-Xxx, Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2160/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Shikha Agarwal, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Dutta, Addl. CIT. Sr.DR

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

…ct cannot be read into the provision of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. The Assessee had placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs AIMIL Ltd. & Ors. 229 CTR 418 (Del) wherein it was held that employees’ contribution to PF should be allowed as deduction which is paid on or before the due date of filing the return of income u/s 139 of the Act. This was not accepted by the Revenue authorities. 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the Assessee has raised ground no.1 before the Tribunal. 5. At the time of hear…

ITO, WD-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S North Brook Jute Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1355/KOL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT.Sr.DRFor Respondent: None

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

…section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) directed the AO to allow the claim of the assessee for deduction and in doing so, the CIT(A) followed the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs AIMIL Ltd. & Ors. 229 CTR 418 (Del) wherein it was held that employees’ contribution to PF should be allowed as deduction which is paid on or before the due date of filing the return of income u/s 139 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the revenue has raised ground no.2 before the Tribunal. 5. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. At the time of hearing it was b…

M/S Jagdamba Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, CC-Xxx, Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1448/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 1448/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Ms. Shikha Agarwal, ACAFor Respondent: None

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

…e assessee, the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. Hence the present appeal by the Assessee before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the Assessee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs AIMIL Ltd. & Ors. 229 CTR 418 (Del) has held that employees’ contribution to PF should be allowed as deduction which is paid on or before the due date of filing the return of income u/s 139 of the Act. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has also taken the view that employees’ contribution to PF paid on or before the due date of filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act s…

DCIT, Circle-1, Kolkata vs. M/S Mcnally Bharati Engineering Co.Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 532/KOL/2012[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No.100/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adak, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Vijayendra Kumar, JCIT

Section 115JSection 43B

…section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 10. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) directed the AO to allow the claim of the assessee for deduction and in doing so, the CIT(A) followed the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs AIMIL Ltd. & Ors. 229 CTR 418 (Del) wherein it was held that employees’ contribution to PF should be allowed as deduction which is paid on or before the due date of filing the return of income u/s 139 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the revenue has raised ground no.2 before the Tribunal. 11. At the time of hearing it was brought to our notice that the Hon’ble Ca…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Himalaya International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6755/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT-(DR)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Bindal, CA

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 43B

…nt of employees contribution of ESIC amounting to Rs. 87,305/- and PF amounting to Rs. 6,02,750/-. 17. At the outset, Ld. AR submitted that this issue stands squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd (2007) 229 CTR 418. Wherein it has been held that if the actual payment of ESIC and PF, has been made before the due date of filing of the return under section 139 (1) of the Act the expenses are allowable. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the order of Assessing Officer. 18. On perusal of assessment order deserves are that Assessing Officer has not disputed any…

Mylan Laboratories Limited, Telangana vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 214/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Chandana Ramachandran, CIT-III(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…(Raja HC) - CIT .vs. State Bank of Beaker & Japer (2014) (363 ITR 70) (Raja HC) - CIT vs. Japer Idiot Veteran Enigma Ltd. (2014) (363 ITR 70) (Raja HC) - CIT vs. Rajasthan Raja Idiot Utahan Enigma Ltd. (2014) (363 ITR 307) - CIT vs. Animal Ltd. & Ors. (2010) 229 CTR 418 (Del HC) - CIT vs. Vine Cement Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR (St) 1 - CIT vs. Kasha Sugar Co. Ltd (2013) (356 ITR 351) (Uttarakhand HC) - CIT vs Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd Vs CIT (2014) (266 CTR 241) (Kar HC) - CIT vs Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd (213 Taxman 376) (Himachal Pradesh HC) - CIT vs ANZ Information Technology (P.) Ltd (2010) (318 ITR 123) (Kar…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Agila Specialties Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 179/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Chandana Ramachandran, CIT-III(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C