CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd.

319 ITR 306Supreme Court of India2009#31 most cited

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

A proviso inserted into a section to remedy unintended consequences, make the section workable, or supply an obvious omission must be read retrospectively in operation to give effect to the section as a whole.

1,344

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 383,061 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. · Alom Extrusions · Section 36(1)(va) · Section 43B · Section 2(24)(x) · retrospective amendment · proviso interpretation · unintended consequences · employee contribution PF ESI · deduction allowance

Also reported as

1 SCC 489

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 50C
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 2(24)(x)section 36(1)(va)section 43bsection 2(24)section 43section 36(1)section 36section 139(1)section 139section 143(1)section 13prescribed

Judgments citing CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd.

Mafatlal Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6085/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Arati Vissanji &For Respondent: Nimesh Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO. 6963/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2007-08) M/s. Mafatlal Industries Limited v. Addl. CIT – 6(3) Mafatlal House, Backbay Reclamation Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road H.T. Parekh Marg, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAACM2813L (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.NO. 4369/MUM/2013 (A.Y. 2008-09) M/s. Mafatlal Industries Limited v. Addl. CIT – 6(3) Kaledonia, Office No.3 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 6th Floor, Sahar Road Mumbai - 400020 Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400069 PAN: AAACM2…

Well Protect Manpower Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Banglore

In the result, we do not perceive any merit in this appeal and accordingly the same stands dismissed

ITA 1094/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R.Kumar & Sh. Anubhav Sharmawell Protect Manpower Vs. Dcit, Services Pvt. Ltd. Cpc, F 22, 2Nd Floor Khasra 737/3 & Bangalore 737/6 Near Mcd School 100 Futa Road, Burari, Delhi-34 Pan : Aaacw4672R (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

…us courts being relied upon by the appellant (as listed herebelow) be not ignored. Sl.No. Title Citation No. 1. Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677 (SC) 2. CIT vs. Vinay Cement Ltd. [2007] 213 CTR 268 (SC) 3. CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC) 4. CIT vs. AIMIL LTD. [2010] 321 ITR 508 (Del.) 5. CIT vs. George Williamson (Assam) [2006] 284 ITR 619 (Gau) Ltd. 6. CIT vs. Other vs. Sabari [2008] 298 ITR 141(Kar) Enterprises 7. CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran [2014] 363 ITR 307 (Raj) Nigam Ltd. 8. Essae Teraoka P. Ltd. vs. DCIT [2014] 366 ITR 408 (Kar) 9. CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports […

M/S Amalgamations Repco Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 559/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R,Vijayaraghvan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…n CIT v. Industrial Security & Intelligence India (P.) Ltd. [TCA No. 585 of 2015, dated 24-7-2015] and held as under: - 5. We find that the Tribunal has rightly relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 306, whereby, the Supreme Court held that omission of second proviso to Section 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 hel…

Srm Sweets and Cakes, Erode vs. ADIT-CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 545/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 21.07.2022
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 5

…of Madras in the case of M/s. Industrial Security and Intelligence India P Ltd., supra, wherein it is held as under:- “5. We find that the Tribunal has rightly relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 306, whereby, the Supreme Court held that omission of second proviso to Section 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 hel…

Riflex Industries Private Limited, Chennai vs. CIT[A], NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 536/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 21.07.2022
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…Madras in the case of M/s. Industrial Security and Intelligence India P Ltd., supra, wherein it is held as under:- 4 “5. We find that the Tribunal has rightly relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 306, whereby, the Supreme Court held that omission of second proviso to Section 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 hel…

Ideal Beach Resort, Neelankarai vs. The Assesing Officer, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 531/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 21.07.2022
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…of Madras in the case of M/s. Industrial Security and Intelligence India P Ltd., supra, wherein it is held as under:- “5. We find that the Tribunal has rightly relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 306, whereby, the Supreme Court held that omission of second proviso to Section 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 hel…

Spr Construction Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 520/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Respondent: 21.07.2022
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 25Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…of Madras in the case of M/s. Industrial Security and Intelligence India P Ltd., supra, wherein it is held as under:- “5. We find that the Tribunal has rightly relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 306, whereby, the Supreme Court held that omission of second proviso to Section 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 hel…

R.Ramakrishnan, Tirupur vs. DCIT, Bengaluru

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

ITA 513/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 21.07.2022
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…of Madras in the case of M/s. Industrial Security and Intelligence India P Ltd., supra, wherein it is held as under:- “5. We find that the Tribunal has rightly relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 306, whereby, the Supreme Court held that omission of second proviso to Section 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 hel…

M/S Autotech Industries [ India ] Private Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 500/CHNY/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 21.07.2022
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…of Madras in the case of M/s. Industrial Security and Intelligence India P Ltd., supra, wherein it is held as under:- “5. We find that the Tribunal has rightly relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 306, whereby, the Supreme Court held that omission of second proviso to Section 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 hel…

Airtec Systems, Coimbatore vs. ADIT, Bangalore

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee for

ITA 493/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 21.07.2022
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 438

…of Madras in the case of M/s. Industrial Security and Intelligence India P Ltd., supra, wherein it is held as under:- “5. We find that the Tribunal has rightly relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 306, whereby, the Supreme Court held that omission of second proviso to Section 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 hel…

Airtec Systems, Coimbatore vs. ADIT, Bangalore

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee for

ITA 492/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 21.07.2022
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 438

…of Madras in the case of M/s. Industrial Security and Intelligence India P Ltd., supra, wherein it is held as under:- “5. We find that the Tribunal has rightly relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 306, whereby, the Supreme Court held that omission of second proviso to Section 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 hel…

Rapid Global Business |Solutions India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 496/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Rapid Global Business Solutions India Vs. Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Cpc, 18/7, 1St Floor, Narayan Business Bengaluru. Chambers, Hosur Road, Wilson Garden, Bengaluru – 560 027. Pan : Aaccr 5018 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Joseph Varghese, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: . V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Joseph Varghese, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2019-20 M/s. Rapid Global Business Solutions India Vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Private Limited, CPC, 18/7, 1st Floor, Narayan Business Bengaluru. Chambers, Hosur Road, Wilson Garden, Bengaluru – 560 027. PAN : AACCR 5018 A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Joseph Varghese, Advocate Revenue by : Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 18.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 18.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V.…

Bulk Liquid Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 485/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Rajgopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 484, 485/Bang/2022 Assessment Years : 2018-19, 2019-20 M/s. Bulk Liquid Solutions Private Limited, Vs. DCIT, Regd. Office: No.31, Nadekerappa Ind. Circle – 1(1)(1), Estate, Andrahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Hobli – Yeshwantpur, Bengaluru – 560 091. PAN : AACCB 5632 N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Rajgopal, CA Revenue by : Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 18.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 18.07.2022 O R D E…

Bulk Liquid Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 484/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Rajgopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 484, 485/Bang/2022 Assessment Years : 2018-19, 2019-20 M/s. Bulk Liquid Solutions Private Limited, Vs. DCIT, Regd. Office: No.31, Nadekerappa Ind. Circle – 1(1)(1), Estate, Andrahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Hobli – Yeshwantpur, Bengaluru – 560 091. PAN : AACCB 5632 N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Rajgopal, CA Revenue by : Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 18.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 18.07.2022 O R D E…

Greenglobe Fuelsolutions, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 26(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1886/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Of Income And, Hence, Allowable As Deduction U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 43B.

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RamchandraFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…bay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (2015) 53 taxmann.com 141 (Bombay), CIT vs. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 1 (Bombay) and decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC). Further, the Tribunal has in number of decisions held that the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 are applicable for Assessment Year 2021-22, and therefore, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance by placing reliance on the same. 7. The Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that Circular 22 of 2015 issued by the…

United Shippers Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 3 (3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7801/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhunited Shippers Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Prospect Income Tax-3(3) Chambers, D.N. Road, Air India Building, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0764C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Aakash Marthak &For Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 41(1)Section 43B

…case of GhatgePatil Transports Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held that both employers and employee’s contributions are covered under amendment to section 43B and judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306/185 Taxman 416 that payment made was subject to benefit of section 43B. We have perused the decision of ITAT Bangalore in the case of Mavinahalli Shivananjappa Vijay Kumar vide ITA Nos. 596 & 597/Bang/ 2021 dated 13.12.2021 wherein it is held that explanatory memorandum to the Finance Act 2021 proposing amendment in Section 36(1)(va) as well as s…

P. Rajesh Ship Breaking Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1980/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhp. Rajesh Ship Breaking Vs. Acit, Circle 4(3)(2) Pvt. Ltd., 61/2 Lakri Aayakar Bhavan, Bunder, Rey Road, M.K. Road, Darukhana, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400010 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacp7197G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: C.V. JainFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…case of GhatgePatil Transports Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held that both employers and employee’s contributions are covered under amendment to section 43B and judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306/185 Taxman 416 that payment made was subject to benefit of section 43B. We have perused the decision of ITAT Bangalore in the case of Mavinahalli Shivananjappa Vijay Kumar vide ITA Nos. 596 & 597/Bang/ 2021 dated 13.12.2021 wherein it is held that explanatory memorandum to the Finance Act 2021 proposing amendment in Section 36(1)(va) as well as s…

Tuff Guard Force Private Limited, Ghatkopar West vs. CIT(Appeals) NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 2450/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Tuff Guard Force Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of Income 207, Kails Esplanade, Lbs Marg, Vs. Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Ghatkopar (W), Delhi. Mumbai 400 086 Pan No.Aabcb4892K Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri D.B. Shah. Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Kumar (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 21.06.2022. Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2022. O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, A.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dt.28.01.2021 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Kumar (D.R.)For Respondent: Shri D.B. Shah
Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 438Section 43B

…ase of Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held that both employers and employee’s contributions are covered under amendment to section 43B and judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306/185 Taxman 416 that payment made was subject to ITA No.2450/MUM/2021 7 benefit of section 43B. We have perused the decision of ITAT Bangalore in the case of Mavinahalli Shivananjappa Vijay Kumar vide ITA Nos. 596 & 597/Bang/ 2021 dated 13.12.2021 wherein it is held that explanatory memorandum to the Finance Act 2021 proposing amendment in Sectio…

ACIT Cent. Cir 5(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Sunil B.Dalal, Mumbai

In the result, Appeal of The ld AO is dismissed

ITA 2239/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shri Sunil B Dalal Central Circle 5(4) D/52, Tarabaug Estate, Room No.1927, 19Th Floor, Charni Road, Vs. Air India Bldg, Mumbai-400 004 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaepd3658F Assessee By : Shri Sashi Tulsiyan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.07.22 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2022

For Appellant: Shri Sashi Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

…hardship to the assessee or to remove an apparent 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 Alom Enterprises (319 ITR 306) (SC). Shri Sunil B Dalal; A.Y. 18–19 021. 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 1,51,20,9…

Addl.CIT, Special Range-8, New Delhi vs. Shivalik Prints Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 75/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Astha Chandraaddl. Cit Vs. Shivalik Prints Ltd. Special Range – 8, C-2/54, 5Th Floor, New Delhi Rajasthali Apartments, Pitampura, New Delhi-34 Pan No. Aadcs 6186 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Praveen Kumar, C.A. Revenue By Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.07.2022 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.10.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under:-

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(23)(x)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Addl. CIT Vs. Shivalik Prints Ltd. Special Range – 8, C-2/54, 5th Floor, New Delhi Rajasthali Apartments, Pitampura, New Delhi-34 PAN No. AADCS 6186 R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Praveen Kumar, C.A. Revenue by Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 11.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 11.07.2022 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 15.10.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (A…