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.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd.?

1,344 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (319 ITR 306), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 36(1)(va), Section 43B, Section 143(3), Section 2(24)(x), Section 143(1), Section 143(1)(a).

CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (319 ITR 306)

M/S. Valdel Engineers and Constructors Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 126/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

…ntribution and employer's contribution under the Act was duly recognised by the Courts in below listed decisions, wherein the courts have clearly distinguished the facts from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306. He placed reliance on the following decisions:- (a) CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 41 taxamnn.com 100 / 366 ITR 170 / 223 Taxman 398 (Guj.) (b) CIT v Merchem Ltd (2015) 61 taxmann.com 119/235 Taxman 291/378 ITR 443 (Ker) (c) Popular Vehicles & Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 96 taxmann.com 13 / 257 Taxman 120 / 406 ITR (…

M/S.Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the

ITA 274/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Mr. G.Johnson, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 13.05.2022

Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 90

…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.Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the

ITA 273/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2022AY 2019-2020

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

For Appellant: Mr. G.Johnson, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 13.05.2022

Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 90

…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…

Shankar Packgings Ltd., Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 316/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Shankar Packagings Vs. National Faceless Appeal Limited , 303, Turf Centre, Delhi Estate, Shakti Mills New Delhi Lane,Off. Dr. E. Moses Road, Mahalaxmi (West) Mumbai – 400011 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacs8076P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Apurva R. Shah Respondent By : C.T. Mathews Date Of Hearing 12.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.05.2022 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, 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. 2018-19. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. In Not Adjudicating The Appellant'S Claim On Merits Of The Issue But Merely Holding That The Appellant Ought To Have Filed An Appeal Against The Intimation Issued Under Section 143(1) & Not Against The Order Rejecting The Proposal U/S. 154. 2. In Not Appreciating That By The Said Action The Nfac Has Therefore Approved An Incorrect Act Done Whilst Processing The Return Filed.

For Appellant: Apurva R. ShahFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 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…

Nisan Scientific Process Equipments Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, CPC Bangalore

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

ITA 2031/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.2030 & 2031/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2018-19& 2019-20) Nisan Scientific Process Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Cpc R. 587/1, Midc [Dcit-15(1)(2)] Industrial Area Thane Aayakar Bhavan, Belapur Road Rabale Mumbai -560500 Navi Mumbai – 400701 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabcn5187F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Harshal AjmeraFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…-19 & 2019-20 3 Nisan Scientific Process Equipments Pvt. Ltd. VS. DCIT, CPC 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…

Nisan Scientific Process Equipments Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, CPC Bangalore

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

ITA 2030/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.2030 & 2031/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2018-19& 2019-20) Nisan Scientific Process Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Cpc R. 587/1, Midc [Dcit-15(1)(2)] Industrial Area Thane Aayakar Bhavan, Belapur Road Rabale Mumbai -560500 Navi Mumbai – 400701 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabcn5187F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Harshal AjmeraFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…-19 & 2019-20 3 Nisan Scientific Process Equipments Pvt. Ltd. VS. DCIT, CPC 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…