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 Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Industrias Del Recambio India P Ltd., Kancheepuram

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 1237/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1237/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Jcit (Osd) V. M/S.Industrias Del- Corporate Cirlce-2(2), Recambio India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. A-7, Sipcot Industrial Growth Centre, Oragadam, Mathur Post, Sriperumbudur, Kanchipuram-602 105. [Pan: Aabci 3336 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Arihanth Kumar JainFor Respondent: Mr.G.Johnson, Addl.CIT
Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…s. As regards disallowance of delayed payment of employee’s contribution to PF & ESI, the Ld.CIT(A) by following certain judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd., reported in [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC), :: 4 :: deleted the additions made by the AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 4. The Ld.AR for the assessee, at the time of hearing, submitted that the appeal filed by the Revenue becomes infructuous, because, the TPO in pursuant to the directions of the Ld.CIT(A), has examined the claim of the…

Suman Creation, Mumbai vs. ITO -22 (6) (3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 & 2019-20 are allowed and addition made by CPC and confirmed by CIT (A) is directed to be deleted

ITA 1687/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Sachin RomaniFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Thakur
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…Court which is the jurisdictional High Court wherein it has been held that both employees and employer’s contribution are covered under the amendment to section 43B of the Act relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs Alom Extrusions Ltd 319 ITR 306 (SC) and therefore, if such payments are made on or before the due date of filing of the return of income, same are not disallowable. We find that instead of following the decision of jurisdictional High Court, the learned CIT (A) has followed the decision of non jurisdictional High Court, that is, Gujarat High Court. As the jurisdictional High C…

Sh. Sameer Jain, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle, Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3/CHANDI/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavsameer Jain, बनाम Assistant Director Of Income C/O Rajiv Goel & Associates, Tax, 1St Floor, Sco 823-824, Central Processing Centre (Cpc), Bengaluru. Sector 22A, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abnpj6236B

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Ranjeet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…can be made. In support, reliance was placed on decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P) Ltd., 366 ITR 117 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd., 319 ITR 306. It was further submitted that the aforesaid decisions have since been followed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mark Auto Industries Ltd., 358 ITR 3 A.Y.2019-20 43, CIT Vs. Kamal Family Trust (2013), 219 Taxman 81 and CIT Vs. Nuchem Limited, 59 Taxmann.com 455. It was submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has relied…

Sh. Paramjeet Singh, Baddi vs. ITO, Baddi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 414/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavparamjeet Singh, Vpo Manpura, बनाम Dcit, Cpc Banaglore/ Tehsil Baddi, Ito Baddi Solan, Hp. Baddi, Himachal Pradesh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Arbps0049P

For Appellant: Shri Ravinder Kumar Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Ranjeet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…support, reliance was placed on decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the 3 A.Y.2019-20 case of CIT Vs. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P) Ltd., 366 ITR 117 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd., 319 ITR 306. It was further submitted that the aforesaid decisions have since been followed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mark Auto Industries Ltd., 358 ITR 43, CIT Vs. Kamal Family Trust (2013), 219 Taxman 81 and CIT Vs. Nuchem Limited, 59 Taxmann.com 455. It was submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has relied upon the amendme…

Pcp International Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 411/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavpcp International Ltd., बनाम Adit (Cpc), Sco 66, Sector 34A, Bengaluru. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacp9910B

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Ranjeet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…support, reliance was placed on 3 A.Y.2018-19 decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P) Ltd., 366 ITR 117 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd., 319 ITR 306. It was further submitted that the aforesaid decisions have since been followed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mark Auto Industries Ltd., 358 ITR 43, CIT Vs. Kamal Family Trust (2013), 219 Taxman 81 and CIT Vs. Nuchem Limited, 59 Taxmann.com 455. It was submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has relied upon the amendme…

Karnataka State Electronics Development Corporation Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 599/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2018-19 M/S. Karnataka State Electronics Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Development Corporation Ltd., Income Tax, 2Nd Floor, Ttmc “A” Block, Cpc, Bengaluru. Bmtc, Shanthinagar, K. H. Road, Bengaluru–560 027. Pan : Aabck 6661 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Raghavendra R Chakravarthy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Raghavendra R Chakravarthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year :2018-19 M/s. Karnataka State Electronics Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Development Corporation Ltd., Income Tax, 2nd Floor, TTMC “A” Block, CPC, Bengaluru. BMTC, Shanthinagar, K. H. Road, Bengaluru–560 027. PAN : AABCK 6661 P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Raghavendra R Chakravarthy, CA Revenue by : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 09.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan,…

Singhania International Limited, Ludhiana vs. CIT -II, Circle -IV(1), Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 416/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavsinghania International Limited, बनाम Commissioner Of Income Vishwakarma Street, Tax-Ii, Circle-Iv(1), Ludhiana. Gill Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcs5639R

For Appellant: Shri Navneet Sehgal, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Ranjeet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…can be made. In support, reliance was placed on decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P) Ltd., 366 ITR 117 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd., 319 ITR 306. It was further submitted that the aforesaid decisions have since been followed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mark Auto Industries Ltd., 358 ITR 3 A.Y.2018-190 43, CIT Vs. Kamal Family Trust (2013), 219 Taxman 81 and CIT Vs. Nuchem Limited, 59 Taxmann.com 455. It was submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has relied…

Umberto Ceramics Interanational Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1663/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Yogesh ShahFor Respondent: Achal Sharma
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…that both employers and employee’s contributions are covered under amendment to ITA No. 163/Mum/2021 A.Y. 2019-20 3 Umberto Ceramics International Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT(A) section 43B and judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306/185 Taxman 416 and payment made was subject to benefit of section 43B. We have also gone through the decision of ITAT MavinahalliShivanajappa Vijay Kumar Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 596 & 597/Bang/2021) and AdhyarAnandBhavan Sweets India P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No.402 & 403/Chennai/2021) on the issue of applicability of the amended provisions of Explanation…

Vishalakshi Vishwanath, Thane vs. CIT Appeal Thane 2, Thane

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

ITA 1445/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Rupa GamiFor Respondent: Achal Sharma
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 250Section 250(6)Section 43B

…of GhatgePatil Transports Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held that both employers and employee’s contributions are covered under the 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 and payment made was subject to benefit of section 43B. We have also gone through the decision of ITAT MavinahalliShivanajappa Vijay Kumar (supra) and AdhyarAnandBhavan Sweets India P. Ltd. (supra) on the issue of applicability of the amended provisions of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va). The ITAT Bangalore vide ITA No. 596/Bang…

Satish Engineering Works, Mumbai vs. Central Processing Centre, Bangalore., Judicial Assessing Officer:Ward-21(3)(2), Mumbai, Banglore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1028/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

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

…d our attention to the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the proposition that when contribution had been paid prior to filing of return under section 139(1), assessee would be entitled for deduction:- 1. CIT vs M/s Alom Extrusions Limited - 319 ITR 306(SC) 2. CIT VS Vinay Cement Limited - 313 ITR 1 (ST)(SC) 3. Mahadev Gold Storage vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer & Anr 127taxmann.com 722 (Agra) 4. M/s Crescent Roadways Pvt Ltd ITA No.l952/Hyd.2018 3 ITA 1028/Mum/2021 5. Aj'ay Piplani vs ADIT ITA No.114/Chd/2021 6. Shri Gopalakrishna Aswini Kumar vs ADIT ITA No.359/Bang/2021 The Ld.AR of t…

The Etikoppaka Coop Agricultural Industrial Society Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 260/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R L Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Balakrishnan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

…the case of M/s. Industrial Security and Intelligence India P Ltd. in TCA No.585/2015, 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…

Sangrila Nutri Food Products, Kanpur vs. ITO, Ward 2(2)(3), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 99/LKW/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Mar 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2019-20

Section 139(1)Section 43B

…e appellant; 5. while deciding the case of Sagun Foundry Pvt. Ltd. as referred to above, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court had relied upon and referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd. Reported in (2009) 319 ITR 306 and no addition (effectively speaking) was called for and/or justified in law; 6. the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and principles of natural justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the only issue, involved in this appeal, is the addition sustained by CIT(A) of Rs.3,16,479/- representi…

M/S S.K. Shoes and Boots Private Limited, Kanpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(5), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 110/LKW/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Mar 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2018-19

Section 43B

…risdictional High Court in the case of Sagun Foundry (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2017] 78 taxmann.com 47 (Allahabad) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has relied upon and referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306 and therefore, it was submitted that the addition sustained by learned CIT(A) be deleted. Reliance in this respect was further placed on the following case laws: 1. Order of Agra Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mahadeo Cold Storage vs. Assessing Officer in I.T.A. No.41 & 42/Agr/2021 2. Order of Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case o…

Alert Detective Force, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Alert Detective Force, Vs. Dcit, B 376, 9Th Cross, Peenya 1St Stage, Central Processing Centre, Ring Road, Peenya Industrial Area, Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 058. Pan : Abcfa 0594 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahesh G, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: . V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Mahesh G, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(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 “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/s. Alert Detective Force, Vs. DCIT, B 376, 9th Cross, Peenya 1st Stage, Central Processing Centre, Ring Road, Peenya Industrial Area, Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 058. PAN : ABCFA 0594 J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Mahesh G, CA Revenue by : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 08.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice President : . V. Vasudevan, Vice President…

Pmgs India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Range-1(2)(4), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1409/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Sh. M.M. Golvala, CAFor Respondent: Sh. R. A. Dhyani, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

…date of filing return of income and hence, no disallowance of the aforesaid expenditure under section 36(1)(va) of the Act should be made. In support of its submissions, the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306 (SC), 2. CIT Vs. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. 368 ITR 748 (Bom.) 3. CIT Vs. Ghatge Patil Transport 368 ITR 748 (Bom.) The CPC without considering submissions of the assessee vide intimation under section 143(1) of the Act dated 05.03.2020 disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction in respect of payment of PF and made addition of Rs. 91,378/-.…

Gretis India Private Limited, Panchkula vs. ITO, Ward - 3(5), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 374/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Mrs. Preet Kamal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 36Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ ‘‘ए’.’’, च"डीगढ़ च"डीगढ़ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ च"डीगढ़ च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ ITA No. 374/CHD/2021 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील Assessment Year : 2019-20 Gretis India Private Ltd., The ITO, बनाम SCO 95, Sector 3, Ward 3(5), VS Panchkula. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: AAACR8554R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/A…

M/S Udvasit Berojgar Sahakari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd., Sonbhadra vs. CIT (Exemption), Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 27/ALLD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 2Section 36(1)Section 43B

…sited by assessee to the credit of employee with relevant fund before the due date prescribed for filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the 1961 Act , by relying on following judicial decision(s) as stipulated hereunder:- 1. CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd., in 319 ITR 306(SC) 2. CIT v. Industrial Security and Intelligence India Pvt. Ltd., (Mad) Tax Case Appeal Nos.585 and 586 of 2015 and M.P No.1 of 2015 , dated 24.07.2015 3. ACIT v. M/s.Easun Products of India (P) Ltd., in I.T.A. No. No.182/Mds./2016 , vide order of Chennai Tribunal dated 19.05.2016, for ay: 2012-13. 10.2 Aggrieved by an appellate order dated 30.…

Vaaho Agencies Private Limited, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1 ( 1 ), Amritsar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee related all grounds of ITA No

ITA 30/ASR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meenash. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Jatinder Arora (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Satbir Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ibunal, in law, was right in allowing the claim of the Assessee on account of delayed payments of P.F. Of employees' contribution amounting to Rs.1,82,77,138/- by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd. (319 ITR 306) ?” After referring to the amendments that were made available to section 43B of the Act, the Hon’ble High Court answered the aforesaid question in the affirmative and upholding the order of the tribunal qua the aforesaid aspect dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. Also, we find that a similar view had been arrived at by various Hon’ble Hig…

M/S Deep Nursing Home & Children Hospital, Ludhiana vs. The DCIT, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 353/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavm/S Deep Nursing Home & Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम Children Hospital, Income Tax, 481, Model Town, Circle-6, Ludhiana Ludhiana. (Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaafd6348Q

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Smt Priyanka Dhar, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…can be made. In support, reliance was placed on decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P) Ltd., 366 ITR 117 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd., 319 ITR 306. It was further submitted that the aforesaid decisions have since been followed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court 3 A.Y.2018-19 in the case of CIT Vs. Mark Auto Industries Ltd., 358 ITR 43, CIT Vs. Kamal Family Trust (2013), 219 Taxman 81 and CIT Vs. Nuchem Limited, 59 Taxmann.com 455. It was submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has relied…

Munireddy and Sons, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 9/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. G. Sathyanarayana, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(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 “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.8 and 9/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2018-19 and 2019-20 Shri. Munireddy and Sons, Vs. ITO, No.09 (91/93/46) 3rd ‘A’ Cross, NGR Ward – 7(2)(2), Layout Roopena Agrahara, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 068. PAN : ABXPJ 1260 D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. G. Sathyanarayana, CA Revenue by : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 02.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 02.03.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice President : er N. V. V…