CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd.

Paramount Health Services & Insurance Tpa Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhparamount Health Vs. Cit(A) Services & Insurance Tpa Nfac, Delhi Pvt. Limited, 1St Floor, Elite Auto House, 54-A, M Vasanji Marg, Mumbai – 400 069 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccp4465H Appellant .. Respondent

…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 ITA No.2548/Mum/2021 A.Y.2018-19 3 Paramount Health Services & Insurance TPA Pvt.ltd. Vs. CIT(A) NFAC 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 t…

Axis Carriers and Logistics Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…arate adjudication. 7. Ground no.4 raised in assessee’s appeal is with regard to disallowance of Rs. 10,08,434 on account of employer’s contribution to ESIC and P.F. This issue is covered by decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Alom Extrusions: [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC) and therefore, employer’s contribution to ESIC and P.F. is allowable under section 43B of the Act. Accordingly, ground no.4 raised in assessee’s appeal is allowed. 8. In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on .05.2022 – – PRAMOD KUMAR SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI,…

Paramount Health Services and Insurance Tpa Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.2547 /Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2017-18) Paramount Health Vs. Cit(A) Services & Insurance Tpa Nfac, Delhi Pvt. Limited, 1St Floor, Elite Auto House, 54-A, M Vasanji Marg, Mumbai – 400 069 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccp4465H Appellant .. Respondent

…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) ITA No.2547…

M/S. Oricon Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT, RG-8(2) (1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.2113 & 2440/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Oricon Enterprises Vs. Dcit, Range-8(2)(1) Limited, (Amalgamated 6Th Floor, Aayakar Company)(Erstwhile Oriental Bhavan, Containers Ltd, Amalgamating Mumbai - 400020 Company, Now Amalgamated With Oricon Enterprises Limited) 1076, Dr. E Moses Road, Worli, Mumbai -400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaco0480F Appellant .. Respondent

…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 ITA Nos.2113 & 2440/Mum/2021 AYs. 2017-18 & 2018-19 3 M/s Oricon Enterprises Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Range-8(2)(1) Bangalore in the case of Mavinahalli Shivananjappa Vijay Kumar vide ITA Nos. 596 & 597/Bang/ 2021 dated 13.12.2021 wherein it is he…

M/S. Oricon Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. -8(2) (1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.2113 & 2440/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Oricon Enterprises Vs. Dcit, Range-8(2)(1) Limited, (Amalgamated 6Th Floor, Aayakar Company)(Erstwhile Oriental Bhavan, Containers Ltd, Amalgamating Mumbai - 400020 Company, Now Amalgamated With Oricon Enterprises Limited) 1076, Dr. E Moses Road, Worli, Mumbai -400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaco0480F Appellant .. Respondent

…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 ITA Nos.2113 & 2440/Mum/2021 AYs. 2017-18 & 2018-19 3 M/s Oricon Enterprises Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Range-8(2)(1) Bangalore in the case of Mavinahalli Shivananjappa Vijay Kumar vide ITA Nos. 596 & 597/Bang/ 2021 dated 13.12.2021 wherein it is he…

Nm Diagnostics Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhnm Diagnostics Private Vs. Dcit, Cpc Limited, 32, Bangalore Summerville, Jn. Of 14Th 560500 & 33Rd, Above Bombay Blue Restaurant, Link Road, Khar (West), Mumbai – 400050 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aadcr1280P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sunil Hirawat Respondent By : C.T. Mathews Date Of Hearing 18.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O. U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Before Us: “(1) On Facts & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Cit(A) Had Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.2,08,464/Being Belated Payment Of Provident Fund U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Income-Tax Act.

…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…

Quick Builders, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhquick Builders Vs. Dcit, Circle 22(1) Plot No. 142, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 08, Piramal Shah House, S.V.Road, Chambers, Lalbaug, Khar, West, Parel, Mumbai - 400012 Mumbai – 400052 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaafq0227F Appellant .. Respondent

…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…

Malgudi Foods Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CPC, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhmalgudi Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cpc, Bangalore 8, Kamala Bhavan 560100 Sharma, Industrial Estates Walbhat Road Ram Mandir (E) 400063 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaecm8352L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : B.K. Bagchi Date Of Hearing 13.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O. U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For A.Y. 2019-20. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Nfac Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made Of Rs. 27,62,936/Being Payment Of Pf & Esic Dues W/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act Considering The Same As Not Deposited On Time Ignoring The Fact That The Delay Was Marginal & Payment Was Made Before Filing The Return.

…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 ITA No. 2309/Mum/2021 A.Y.2019-20 3 Malgudi Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CPC, Bangalore 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 memorand…

Babubhai Jagjivandas, Mumbai vs. ADIT (CPC), Banglore

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhbabubhai Jagjivandas Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income 128, Vishnu Niketan, Tax(Cpc), Bangalore Prathna Samaj Road, [Acit-19(1)Mumbai] New Charni Road, Matru Mandir, Mumbai – 400004 Mumbai - 400007 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaafb5829N Appellant .. Respondent

…und u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s 43B and 2(24)(x) of the Act. a. By disregarding the judgement of Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749 and Hind Filter Ltd 90 taxmann.com 51 (Bombay) and Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC). b. By disregarding the fact that the judgement of Jurisdictional High Court is binding even in faceless appeal and assessment as per the order of Mahadev Cold Storage 127 taxmann.com 722 (Agra) I which it is held that, “Though Centralized NFAC has been created by Notification by CBDT, it should be ensured that whenever any _ appellate order…

Ajay Naresh Aggarwal, Mumbai vs. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Kavitha Rajagopal () Ajay Naresh Aggarwal Vs Income-Tax Officer 6 & 7, Court House Circle 18(1), Mumbai L.T. Marg, Dhobi Talao Mumbai-400 002 Pan : Adopa5571B Appellant Respondent

…dealt with by various Hon’ble High Courts including the jurisdictional Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd (2014) 368 ITR 749 (Bom) wherein it was held that the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs Alom Extrusions Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) that the amendment to section 43B of I.T. Act was applicable to both employer’s as well as employees’ contribution. Furthermore, the amendment brought out in the Finance Act, 2021 was only prospective and not retrospective thereby was applicable only to assessment year 2021-22 onwards and to subsequent years. The same has been reiterated by…

Aura Facilities Management Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore - CPC

In the result, appeal is allowed

…was passed the issue stood decided in the favour of the Appellant by virtue of the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd.: 366 ITR 1 (Bom) and the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd.: 319 ITR 306 (noted by CIT(A) in paragraph 3.3.1 of the order). Even assuming arguendo that the stand of the CIT(A)/Revenue is acceptable, the issue was not free from doubt in any case and fell in the category of debatable issue which could not have been addressed by way of additions/adjustments made under Section 143(1) of the Act as even after the introduct…