CIT v. Alom Enterprises Ltd.

227 CTR 417Supreme Court of India2009#8315 most cited

What is CIT v. Alom Enterprises Ltd. authority for?

Amendments to tax law should be treated as effective from the date the original law was introduced if they are intended to rectify hardship or incongruity.

13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Alom Enterprises Ltd. · amendment effective date · hardship · incongruity · tax law

Sections most often in play

Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)Section 234BSection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 143(3A)Section 143(3B)Section 144B

Issues it is cited on

section 56(2)(x)(b)section 56(2)(x)section 56(2)(vii)(b)section 56(2)(vii)stamp duty valuesection 50csection 50section 56(2)section 56section 43bfair market valuesection 43

Judgments citing CIT v. Alom Enterprises Ltd.

Cae Simulation Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2403/BANG/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Abdul Kadir Jawadiwala, by AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri
Section 139Section 143Section 36Section 43B

…os.2402 and 2403/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 6 (Karnataka)/[2013] 215 Taxman 597 (Karnataka)/[2014] 266 CTR 94 (Karnataka)[17-04-2013] which was approved in Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 416 (SC)/[2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC)/[2009] 227 CTR 417 (SC)[25-11-2009] [3] Commissioner of Income-tax vs. ANZ Information Technology (P.) Ltd. [2010] 189 Taxman 391 (Karnataka)/[2009] 318 ITR 123 (Karnataka)[15- 09-2009] and [4] Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle -11(3) [2014] 43 taxmann.com 33 (Karnataka)/[2014] 222 Taxman 170 (Karnataka) (MAG)/[2014] 366 ITR 408…

Cae Simulation Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2402/BANG/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Abdul Kadir Jawadiwala, by AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri
Section 139Section 143Section 36Section 43B

…os.2402 and 2403/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 6 (Karnataka)/[2013] 215 Taxman 597 (Karnataka)/[2014] 266 CTR 94 (Karnataka)[17-04-2013] which was approved in Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 416 (SC)/[2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC)/[2009] 227 CTR 417 (SC)[25-11-2009] [3] Commissioner of Income-tax vs. ANZ Information Technology (P.) Ltd. [2010] 189 Taxman 391 (Karnataka)/[2009] 318 ITR 123 (Karnataka)[15- 09-2009] and [4] Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle -11(3) [2014] 43 taxmann.com 33 (Karnataka)/[2014] 222 Taxman 170 (Karnataka) (MAG)/[2014] 366 ITR 408…

Bharatkumar Haridas Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8409/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Respondent: Mr. K. Gopal, Adv. And
Section 56(2)(x)

…rdship or incongruity, was introduced as held by Hon Supreme hardship or incongruity, was introduced as held by Hon Supreme Court in CIT v. Alom Enterprises Ltd. Court in CIT v. Alom Enterprises Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 416/319 [2009] 185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306/227 CTR 417 ITR 306/227 CTR 417. Bharatkumar Haridas Mehta Bharatkumar Haridas Mehta 21. In view of above, 21. In view of above, respectfully following the decision of the respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench in Maria Fernandes Cheryl (supra) we do not find coordinate bench in Maria Fernandes Cheryl (supra) we do not find coordinate be…

Ketan Kumar Sagar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 85/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj MundraFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali(SR DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 56(2)(x)

…arent incongruity, such an amendment has to be treated as effective from the date on which the law, containing such an undue hardship or incongruity, was introduced as held by Hon Supreme Court in CIT v. Alom Enterprises Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306/227 CTR 417. 21. In view of above, respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench in Maria Fernandes Cheryl (supra) we do not find any infirmity in the orders of the ld CIT (A) in applying the tolerance band limit of 10 % in the impugned assessment year also and thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 1,51,20,900/-. Accordingly, Ground no 2 is dism…

Saggar Parimmal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 84/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj MundraFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali(SR DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 56(2)(x)

…arent incongruity, such an amendment has to be treated as effective from the date on which the law, containing such an undue hardship or incongruity, was introduced as held by Hon Supreme Court in CIT v. Alom Enterprises Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306/227 CTR 417. 21. In view of above, respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench in Maria Fernandes Cheryl (supra) we do not find any infirmity in the orders of the ld CIT (A) in applying the tolerance band limit of 10 % in the impugned assessment year also and thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 1,51,20,900/-. Accordingly, Ground no 2 is dism…

Shiv Vegpro Private Limited, Kota vs. PCIT-Udaipur, Udaipur

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

ITA 1014/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, (Adv.) &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, (CIT-DR)
Section 147Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ipur (2014) 52 TW 189 (JP) Para 4 & 7 of its order. Similarly, in M/s K.S. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO in ITA No. 1184 (JP), Zuberi Engineering Company vs. DCIT (2019) 197 TTJ (Jp) 659 and Hon'ble Apex court in the case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 227 CTR 417 (SC) also held so. 5. The above decisions were binding upon the AO even if the department might have filed SLP in absence of any stay granted over the operation of the said judgments. Thus, the AO was bound to have followed the law of the land. Hence he took a possible view and committed no error. 6. Alternatively, it is well settled law that if…

Shree Saisiddhi Export LLP, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-20(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1881/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 234ASection 270ASection 50CSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

…parent incongruity, such an amendment has to be treated as effective from the date on which the law. containing such an undue hardship or incongruity, was introduced as held by Hon Supreme Court in CIT v. Alom Enterprises Ltd [2009] 185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306/227 CTR 417. 21. In view of above, respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench in Maria Fernandes Cheryl (supra) we do not find any infirmity in the orders of the Id CIT (A) in applying the tolerance band limit of 10% in the impugned assessment year also and thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 1,51,20,900/-. Accordingly, Ground no 2 is dismi…

Glory Shipmanagement Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC Delhi, Delhi

Accordingly, Ground no 2 is dismissed

ITA 3149/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3149/MUM/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Glory Shipmanagement Private Limited, 504, Abhay Steel House, 22 Baroda Street, Masjid (East), Mumbai - 400009 [PAN: AACCG2684H] ...... Appellant Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Centralized Processing Centre, Delhi Vs .......... .... Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : None For the Responden

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 50CSection 55ASection 56(2)(x)

…arent incongruity, such an amendment has to be treated as effective from the date on which the law, containing such an undue hardship or incongruity, was introduced as held by Hon Supreme Court in CIT v. Alom Enterprises Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306/227 CTR 417. 10 21. In view of above, respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench in Maria Fernandes Cheryl (supra) we do not find any infirmity in the orders of the ld CIT (A) in applying the tolerance band limit of 10 % in the impugned assessment year also and thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 1,51,20,900/-. Accordingly, Ground no 2 is d…

Shiiv Veg Pro Private Limited, Kota vs. Central Processing Center, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Paul, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…cedent of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) is deleted. 2.9The Hon'ble Courts and Tribunals have followed the decision in the case of CIT v-s Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC)-227 CTR 417 (SC)- 32 DTR 49 (SC). 3.In the case of CIT v-s GhatgePali Transports Ltd. (2015) 112 DTR 369 (BOM) it is held that "Tribunal was justified in holding that disallowance of the employees' contribution made on account of provident fund, ESI and pension fund on account of delay in payment of the employees' contribution was not sustainable." 4. Alter…

M/S. Enphase Solar Energy Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 723/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Enphase Solar Energy Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income 259, 2Nd Main, 6Th Cross, 2Nd Floor, Tax, Indiranagar, Stage 1, Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru – 560 038. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaece 7259 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Suresh Muthukrishnan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. Suresh Muthukrishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

…pted by us. A copy of the said decision is being enclosed herein as ANNEXURE 2 for your Honour's ready reference. We also beg to submit that the aforesaid decision has also been affirmed by the Apex Court in the decision of Alom Extrusions Limited reported in 227 CTR 417 (SC). 8. It was further submitted that the same view was also reaffirmed once again by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Spectrum Consultants India(P) Ltd reported in 12014] 49 taxmann.com 29(Kar). 9. The CIT(A), however, did not agree with the contentions put forth by the assessee and he proceeded to decide the issue as if the…

M/S. Mahati Software Pvt. Ltd., Visakhapatnam vs. The ACIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 68/VIZ/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Sept 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.67/Viz/2016 & 68/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Mahati Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of D.No.10-27-14A Income Tax Sivam, Kailashmetta Circle-3(1) Waltair Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aadcm9620J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(1)Section 194JSection 40

…e the DRP. 19. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions 227 CTR 417(SC). In this case, though the assessee has not remitted the employers contribution before the stipulated date of 15th of succeeding month, the assessee had remitted the entire amount before filing the return of income. Therefore, we hold that the assessee is entitled for deduction if the employer contribution is paid before filing the 26 I.T.A No…

Mahati Software Pvt Ltd., Visakhapatnam vs. The ACIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 67/VIZ/2016[20011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Sept 2018

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.67/Viz/2016 & 68/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Mahati Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of D.No.10-27-14A Income Tax Sivam, Kailashmetta Circle-3(1) Waltair Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aadcm9620J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(1)Section 194JSection 40

…e the DRP. 19. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions 227 CTR 417(SC). In this case, though the assessee has not remitted the employers contribution before the stipulated date of 15th of succeeding month, the assessee had remitted the entire amount before filing the return of income. Therefore, we hold that the assessee is entitled for deduction if the employer contribution is paid before filing the 26 I.T.A No…

Subhalaxmi Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Nayagarh vs. JCIT, Ramge-2, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and that of

ITA 132/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 194ASection 194CSection 194JSection 40

…paid within the stipulated time provided under the PF Act and, therefore, he show caused the assessee as to why same should not be disallowed u/s.43B of the Act. The assessee submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd., 227 CTR 417 and Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam ltd., vs CIT, 98 DTR 105 (Raj) have held that as per provisions of section 43B of the Act, if the amount is paid before the due date of filing of return of income, Section 36(1)(va) is not applicable. It was also submitted that in the case of the assessee itself for th…

CIT v. Alom Enterprises Ltd. (227 CTR 417) — Cited in 13 Judgments | BharatTax