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.

DCIT, Noida vs. M/S. L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Greater Noida

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1969/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

…uld not serve its object in such a situation unless it is construed as retrospective. The view, therefore, taken by the Delhi High Court cannot be sustained.‖ 100. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd 319 ITR 306 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where a proviso in section is inserted to remedy unintended consequences to make section workable the proviso which supplies obvious omission therein in required to be read retrospectively in operation particularly to give effect to section as a whole. 101. Same view was followed by the Hon'ble Supreme…

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Sheth Realtors, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4008/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Sheth Realtors Income-Tax Officer-7(1) Vasant Oasis, Site Office, [Erstwhile Ito-23(3)(3)] Upper Basement, Mumbai Cts No 345A 1 To 3, Vs. 345A 5 To 6, Makwana Road, Marol, Andheri East., Mumbai – 400059 [Pan: Aavfa3975F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Sheth Realtors Income-Tax, Central Circle 12Th Floor, Hallmark Business 7(1), Vs. Plaza, Sant Dyaneshwar Marg Mumbai Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 [Pan: Aavfa3975F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate & Shri Rahul Hakani, Advocate Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee & Revenue Are Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) 49, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024- Assessment Year 2017-18 25/1075205796(1), Dated 28.03.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income-Tax Officer, Ward-23(3)(3), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 30.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee & Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: I. Ita No. 2712/Mum/2025 [Assessee]

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate and Shri Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)

…pellant has deposited the employees' contribution to PF & ESIC before filing of income tax return due as per Section 139(1) of the I. T. Act. 3.2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Alom Extrusion Ltd. 319 ITR 306 has held that if the employees contribution to PF & ESIC is paid before the filing of IT return than there would not be any disallowance under Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of 1.T. Act. 4. Ground No. 4 - Addition of Rs. 10,31,540/- under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:- 4.1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.…

Sheth Realtors, Mumbai vs. ITO-7(1) (Erstwhile ITO-23(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2712/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Sheth Realtors Income-Tax Officer-7(1) Vasant Oasis, Site Office, [Erstwhile Ito-23(3)(3)] Upper Basement, Mumbai Cts No 345A 1 To 3, Vs. 345A 5 To 6, Makwana Road, Marol, Andheri East., Mumbai – 400059 [Pan: Aavfa3975F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Sheth Realtors Income-Tax, Central Circle 12Th Floor, Hallmark Business 7(1), Vs. Plaza, Sant Dyaneshwar Marg Mumbai Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 [Pan: Aavfa3975F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate & Shri Rahul Hakani, Advocate Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee & Revenue Are Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) 49, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024- Assessment Year 2017-18 25/1075205796(1), Dated 28.03.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income-Tax Officer, Ward-23(3)(3), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 30.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee & Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: I. Ita No. 2712/Mum/2025 [Assessee]

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate and Shri Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)

…pellant has deposited the employees' contribution to PF & ESIC before filing of income tax return due as per Section 139(1) of the I. T. Act. 3.2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Alom Extrusion Ltd. 319 ITR 306 has held that if the employees contribution to PF & ESIC is paid before the filing of IT return than there would not be any disallowance under Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of 1.T. Act. 4. Ground No. 4 - Addition of Rs. 10,31,540/- under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:- 4.1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.…

Paalar Shoes Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1640/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1640/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Paalar Shoes Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 151/4, Mount Poonamalee Road, Income Tax, Ramapuram, Chennai 600 089. Central Circle 1(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aaecp6556B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.05.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 18, Chennai, For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Raised 4 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एस.एस. िव"ने" रिव, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस.आर. रगुनाथॎ, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1640/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Paalar Shoes Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of No. 151/4, Mount Poonamalee Road, Income Tax, Ramapuram, Chennai 600 089. Central Circle 1(1), Chennai. [PAN:AAECP6556B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" क…

ACIT(CC)-7(3), Mumbai vs. Lotus Logistics and Developers Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 137/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta and Shri Niraj Soni, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 43CSection 68Section 69C

…rought in by the respective Finance Act, 2018 and 2020 are curative and remedial in nature and hence, had to be applied retrospectively. 7.3. Assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC) which held that curative amendments should be applied retrospectively. Assessee also referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 466 (SC) which held that amendments which are beneficial in nature and remove unintended hardships must be interpreted as retrospective. Reference w…

Mycon Construction Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 934/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: S/Shri Manohar Gupta & Karthik K., CAsFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

…basis for rejecting the books. 9 The Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 27,36,573 (Provident Fund: Rs. 24,67,463; ESIC: Rs. 2,69,110) under section 36(1)(va) of the Act, ignoring judicial precedents in CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC) and CIT v. Shabari Enterprises [2007] 298 ITR 148 (Karnataka HC), which allow deductions for employee contributions to PF and ESIC if deposited before the due date for filing the return. 10. The Learned CIT(A) failed to address the Appellant's contention that the Assessing Officer exceeded the scope of scrutiny under the e-Assessment Scheme,…

Muthoot Fincorp Limited, Trivandrum vs. ITO, Circle Central, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 496/COCH/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194CSection 40

…allowance could not have been ordered invoking Section 40 (a)(ia) of the Act. This contention was sought to be substantiated relying on the judgments in Allied Motor (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677/91 Taxman 205 (SC) and CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306/185 Taxman 416 (SC). 12. The second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act reads thus: "Provided further that where an assessee fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVIIB on any such sum but is not deemed to be an assessee in default under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 20…

Muthoot Fincorp Limited, Thiruvananthapuram vs. JCIT, Special Range, Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 465/COCH/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194CSection 40

…allowance could not have been ordered invoking Section 40 (a)(ia) of the Act. This contention was sought to be substantiated relying on the judgments in Allied Motor (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677/91 Taxman 205 (SC) and CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306/185 Taxman 416 (SC). 12. The second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act reads thus: "Provided further that where an assessee fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVIIB on any such sum but is not deemed to be an assessee in default under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 20…

Muthoot Fincorp Limited, Thiruvananthapuram vs. JCIT, Special Range, Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 464/COCH/2025[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2025AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194CSection 40

…allowance could not have been ordered invoking Section 40 (a)(ia) of the Act. This contention was sought to be substantiated relying on the judgments in Allied Motor (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677/91 Taxman 205 (SC) and CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306/185 Taxman 416 (SC). 12. The second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act reads thus: "Provided further that where an assessee fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVIIB on any such sum but is not deemed to be an assessee in default under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 20…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Gvk Jaipur Expressway Pvt Ltd, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for the years [A

ITA 307/JPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us. Moreover, The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objections In Both The

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…made prior to the filing of return of income as is evident from the perusal of the charts given in the assessment orders for both the assessment years. In this regard reliance is placed on decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Alom Extrusions (2009) 319 ITR 306 wherein it has been held as under: Business expenditure--Deduction on actual payment--Contribution to provident fund--Existing provision creating difficulties--Amendment to remove difficulty--Has retrospective effect--Finance Act, 2003, making amendment but as if with effect from April 1, 2004--To be read as having retrospective effect from Apri…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Gvk Jaipur Expressway Pvt Ltd, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for the years [A

ITA 306/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us. Moreover, The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objections In Both The

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…made prior to the filing of return of income as is evident from the perusal of the charts given in the assessment orders for both the assessment years. In this regard reliance is placed on decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Alom Extrusions (2009) 319 ITR 306 wherein it has been held as under: Business expenditure--Deduction on actual payment--Contribution to provident fund--Existing provision creating difficulties--Amendment to remove difficulty--Has retrospective effect--Finance Act, 2003, making amendment but as if with effect from April 1, 2004--To be read as having retrospective effect from Apri…

M/S Beeaar Autowheels India Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Lucknow-New

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 282/LKW/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2020-21 M/S Beeaar Autowheels India V. The Income Tax Officer Pvt Ltd Ward-1(3) 9, Premier Building, Shahnazaf Aaykar Bhawan, 5, Ashok Road, Lucknow-226001. Nagar, Lucknow-New, Uttar Pradesh-226001. Pan:Aadcb8897L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv Respondent By: Shri Deepak Yadav, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05 06 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 08 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Yadav, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…T(A) which was subsequently transferred to Addl/JCIT-2 Ludhiana. It was submitted that the details of the amount payable along with the due dates were all mentioned in the audit report in Form 3CD. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306 (SC) and PCIT Jaipur vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. [2017] 84 taxman.com 185 (SC) and Allahabad High Court in the case of Sagun Foundry Pvt Ltd vs CIT in ITA. No.87 of 2006 (Alld) have all held that the payment of ESI/PF were to be allowed if paid before the filing of the Income Tax Return. Since in the case of the assessee, all t…

Bharatiya Barood Udhyog, Nagpur vs. DCIT JCIT Circle 2, Nagpur

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

ITA 293/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Naresh JakhotiaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

…t was due on 15.01.2017 on 13.02.2017, and the amount of Rs.17,396/- disallowed is of bonus. All this information is clearly stated in TAR enclosed. 4. Because the case law of the Honorable Apex Court in case of M/s Alom Extrusion Limited & Others reported at 319 ITR 306 (SC) in the matter of provident fund contributions of the employees is totally misconstrued. Instead of allowing the amounts are disallowed. 5. Because in the detailed Tax Audit Report enclosed clearly states the above mentioned facts. 6. The assessee craves leave to add or alter any of the ground of appeal on or before the date of hearing. The a…

Uco Bank, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1800/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Mar 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri Sonu Kumar Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Chandan Das, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…tta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vijay Shree Ltd. [2014] 43 taxmann.com 396 (Calcutta) held the field in so far as the jurisdiction of West Bengal was concerned. It was further submitted that the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306 had been passed on 25.11.2009 and the said decision held the field. It was the submission that there was clearly a change of opinion which was not permissible for reopening. It was, however, fairly agreed by the Ld. AR that on merits, as on today, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (sup…

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)

…emove 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 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…

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)

…emove 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 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…

Jagdish Kumar Arora, Bhawanimandi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- Kota, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1195/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

…sing and Construction Ltd. vsACIT (2016) 389 ITR 373, Delhi HC. (iii) Vodafone International Holdings v. UOI (2012) 6 SCC 613 (SC) (iv) Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication India Pvt. Ltd. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 118 (Delhi) (v) CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC) vi) (vi) CIT v. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd. (ITA 160/2015 dated 28.05.2015 Delhi High Court) (vii) CIT v. NGC Network India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 397/2015 dated 29th January 2018) (viii) CIT v. M/s Revathi Equipment Ltd. [2008] 298 ITR 67 (Mad) 4.8. That Rajasthan High Court has also decided in the case of Niharika Jain w/o Sh. Andesh…

Capacite Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT/DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

ITA 6308/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMRJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani
Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…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 the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC). In the aforesaid judgments it was held by the Hon’ble Courts that employees’ contribution towards PF/ESIC deposited before the due date of filing return was allowable as deduction under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act (even though it was deposited after the expiry of the statutory time period specified in the applicable s…

Desh Mitter Gaind, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Panchkula, Haryana

ITA 454/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of Cit(A) Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Monga, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 48Section 50C

…as introduced in the Act. In this regard we wish to rely upon the judgment of Ahmedabad ITAT in the case of Dhraramshibhai Sonani vs. ACIT in which the ITAT while relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd. (319 ITR 306) had allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee. So, on this basis, no addition shall be made in the returned income of the assessee due to difference in above said valuation. (iii) That the aforesaid reply of the assessee was considered carefully by the ld. AO. In response thereto again Show Cause Notice was issued to the assessee which was…

Sree Basaweshwar Vyasaya Seva Sahakari Bank Limited Devihosur, Haveri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haveri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2395/BANG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Years: 2022-23 Shree Basaweshwar Vyasaya Seva Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Sahakari Bank Limited, Ward – 1, Devihosur, Haveri. Haveri – 581 110. PAN – AABAS 7891 K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Prasanna Kumar, CA Revenue by : Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept. Date of hearing : 13.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 28.01.2025 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Ludhiana dat…