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)

Vijay Bag Singh Rajpurohit, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir CPC``, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2260/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailvijay Bag Singh Vs. The Deputy Rajpurohit, Unit No. 2 Commissioner Of Income Building No. 2 Jaswant Tax, Cpc, Bangalore, Bagh, Sion Trombay 560100 Road, Chembur Mumbai – 400071 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Adqpr7848L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra

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…

Sangeeta Udayraj Singh, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed and the orders of the authority below are set aside

ITA 1713/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Learned Cit(A). Learned Cit(A) Confirmed The Action Of Cpc By Holding As Under : 5.41. I Have Carefully Considered The Arguments Of The Appellant As Well As Various Decisions Cited By The Appellant. In The Instant Case, Disallowance Has Been Made U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act On The Ground That The Employees' Contribution To Esic Were Deposited Much After The Specified Dates Mentioned In The Said Act & The Same Is Clearly Mentioned In The Tax Audit Report.

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…and perused the record. I find that prior to the amendment there were Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in CIT Vs. Ghatge Patil Transport Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1002 of 2012 order dated 14.10.2014 following Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in Alom Extrusions Ltd. (319 ITR 306) which laid down that deposits of the sum up to the date of filing of return is sufficient compliance. The Finance Act, 2021 has provided an explanation in this regard for the disallowance of the sum which is paid after the due date. When this fact is taken into account by no stretch of imagination it can said that the above said adjustment can f…

Geeta Udyog, Mumbai vs. ADIT CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 226/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhgeeta Udyog Vs. Asst. Director Of Income 404, Gupta Bhavan, Tax, Cpc, Bengluru Ahmedabad Street, Centralized Processing Carnac Bunder, Centre, Income Tax Mumbai – 400009 Department, Bengaluru 560500 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aajfg1369H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hari S. RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani

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

…gh Court 4 ITA No.226/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2019-20 Geeta Udyog Vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru 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 also gone through the decision of ITAT Chennai in the case of Adhyar Anand Bhavan Sweets India P. Ltd. (2022) 134 taxmann.com 56 wherein it is held that amendment brought in by inserting Explanation 2 to the provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act is pro…

Ajeet Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 6(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 263/JPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 263/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 ITO, cuke Ajeet Singh Plot No. 452, D Block, Near Gyan Vihar Vs. Ward-6(1), School, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BCHPS 4897 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue…

M/S. Dpn Spinners P Ltd, Dindigul vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 76/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.76/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr.N. Arjunraj, CAFor Respondent: Mr.Sanat Kumar Raha

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 Chennai Citizen Security Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.34/Chny/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. Chennai Citizen Security Services Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, 12/3, Ii Floor, Jambulingam Street Cpc, Bengaluru. Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Pan: Aaecc 4507H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. G.Johnson, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 25.04.2022

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद&य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.34/Chny/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/s. Chennai Citizen Security Services Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, 12/3, II Floor, Jambulingam Street CPC, Bengaluru. Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. PAN: AAECC 4507H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr. D.Anand, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/ Appellant by : Mr. G.Johnson, Ad…

M/S. Gia India Laboratories Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 234/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhgia India Laboratory Pvt. Vs. The Dcit, Cpc, Ltd., 10Th Floor, Trade Bangalore, Centre, Bandra Kurla 560500 Complex Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400 098 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccg9457G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ase of GhatgePatil Transport Ltd., the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held that both employer and employees' contribution are covered under amendment to section 43B of the Act and the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 306 holding that payment made was subject to benefit of section 43B of the Act. We have also gone through the decision of ITAT Chennai in the case of Adhyar Ananda Bhavan Sweets India P. Ltd Vs. ACIT vide 134 4 ITA No. 234/Mum/2022 A.Y.2018-19 GIA India Laboratory Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The DCIT, CPC, Bangalore taxmann.com 56 wherein it is held that amendme…

Mr. Atulbhai Ravjibhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The DCIT, CPC, Banglore

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

ITA 300/AHD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Years : 2018-19 Mr. Atulbhai Ravjibhai Patel, The Dcit, S-09, Second Floor, Indiabulls Vs Cpc, Mega Mall, Jetalpur Road, Bangalore Vadodara Pan : Ahupp 6260 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Written Submission On Record Revenue By : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22/04/2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR

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

…ection 36(1)(va) of the Act. It was, therefore, submitted by the assessee that the CPC is not correct in making the disallowance on the late payment of the provident fund amount by relying upon the following case laws:- i) CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC) ii) CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [2014] 363 ITR 70 (Raj.) Atulbhai Ravjibhai Patel Vs. DCIT AY : 2018-19 5 iii) CIT vs. Hemla Embroidery Mils (P.) Ltd [2014] 366 ITR 167 (P&H) iv) CIT vs. Nuchem Ltd. [2015] 59 taxmann.com 455 (P&H) v) CIT vs. Magus Customers Dialog (P.) Ltd. [2015] 57 taxmann.com 94 vi) Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd vs.…

S R Group, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward-4, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1749/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C. (Through Video Conferencing) आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No.1749/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. S. R. Group, Income Tax Officer, 529, Sector : 6, Ward : 4, बनाम Bahadurgarh, Rohtak. Vs. Haryana – 124 507. Pan No. Abwfs0371F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. D. R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…owance made to employees’ contribution to EPF and ESI as the same were remitted before the due date of filing of return of income. 7. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Alom Extrusions Limited (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC). Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. I.T.A. No. 1749/Del/2021 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on : 22/04/2022. ( C. N. PRASAD ) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 22/04/2022. *MEHTA*…