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.

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 8/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

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…

Kanthi Agency Networks, Mysuru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Kanthi Agency Networks, Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income No.17, 5Th Block, Shivashakthi Road, Tax, Shakthinagara, Centralized Processing Centre, Mysuru – 570 019. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaifk 6664 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None 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

For Appellant: NoneFor 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. Kanthi Agency Networks, Vs. The Assistant Director of Income No.17, 5th Block, Shivashakthi Road, Tax, Shakthinagara, Centralized Processing Centre, Mysuru – 570 019. Bengaluru. PAN : AAIFK 6664 Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : None 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 : devan, Vice President This is…

Sh. Arjun Yadav, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 351/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavarjun Yadav Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम Prop. Arjun Yadav & Company, Income Tax, Cpc, R-175, New Grain Market, Bangalore Through Ito, Salem Tabri, Ward 3(1), Ludhiana.. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aatpy0543P

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Jain, CAFor 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…

Sabarmati Gas Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1607/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT DR &
Section 250(6)

…e purpose of making disallowance. 2.4 The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact the appellant has rightly considered the late deposit of employee's provident fund as allowable by relying on following decisions a. CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) b. CIT vs. Aimil Limited - (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) c. Parry Agro Industries Vs. ACIT (2009) 314 ITR (AT) 181 d. CIT Vs. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP) 2.5 The Appellant humbly submits that disallowance of Rs. 1,75,9047- towards employee's provident fund contribution u/s. 36(1 )(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the act as confirmed by…

The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Gandhinagar vs. Sabarmati Gas Limited, Gandhinagar

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1533/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT DR &
Section 250(6)

…e purpose of making disallowance. 2.4 The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact the appellant has rightly considered the late deposit of employee's provident fund as allowable by relying on following decisions a. CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) b. CIT vs. Aimil Limited - (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) c. Parry Agro Industries Vs. ACIT (2009) 314 ITR (AT) 181 d. CIT Vs. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP) 2.5 The Appellant humbly submits that disallowance of Rs. 1,75,9047- towards employee's provident fund contribution u/s. 36(1 )(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the act as confirmed by…

Duratex Apparels, Mumbai vs. ITO, 24(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1378/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 Duratex Apparels, Income Tax Officer-24(1)(1), 3Rd Floor, Piramal Chamber, 122-Sanjay Building 5A, Mittal Vs. Industrial Estate, Andheri-Kurla Mumbai-400012. Road, Andheri-East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aagfd 5111 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ryan Saldanha, Ar Revenue By : Mr. T. Shankar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Ryan Saldanha, ARFor Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…of Ghatge Patil 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 Mavinahalli Shivanajappa Vijay Kumar (supra) and Adhyar Anand Bhavan 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/B…

Pawan Kumar Janghu, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-34(6), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1545/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Pawan Kumar Janghu, Vs Ito, Ca M R Sahu & Associates, Ca, House Ward-34(6), No.651, 1St Floor, Sector-10A, Nr New Delhi. Union Bank Of India, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001. Pan-Aevpj8333C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri M.R.Sahu, Ca Respondent By Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.02.2022

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

…f appeal raised, which are considered and perused. I have gone through the judicial decision of the Sagun Foundry (P.) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income tax, Kanpur [2017] 78 taxmann.com 47 (Allahabad) following the decision in CIT Vs Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306/185 Taxman 416 (SC). The decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case because Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided the issue in Alom Extrusions Ltd. case qua employers contribution as per section 43B(b) of the Act and not qua employees contribution u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. The various other judicia…

J.M.C Plywood, Goraya vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3, Phagwara

In the result, the disallowances confirmed by the NFAC/CIT(A) related to ITA No

ITA 4/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, 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 Diamond Red Tanneries, Kapurthala vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the disallowances confirmed by the NFAC/CIT(A) related to ITA No

ITA 21/ASR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, 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…

Khalsa Bakery, Kaputhala vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -4 (2), Jalandhar

In the result, the disallowances confirmed by the NFAC/CIT(A) related to ITA No

ITA 20/ASR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, 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…

Ernst & Young Service Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 8(2), New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the Assesses is allowed

ITA 5613/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Of Income U/S.139(1) Of The Act, Which Resulted Into Addition Of Rs. 23,48,801/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Disallowance .

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Harpal Singh Kharab, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ct, hence no disallowance is warranted. In support of its contention the Assessee also relied upon various judgments rendered by Hon‟ble Apex Court, which includes Rajasthan State Beverages Ltd (2017) 84 Taxmann.com 185 (SC), CIT Vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd (2010) 1 SCC 489, CIT Vs. Vinay Cement Ltd 213 CTR 268 and by Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd 321 ITR 508. 7. On the contrary Ld. DR refuted the claim of the Assessee and relied upon various judgments of the Hon‟ble High Courts against the contention and claim of the Assessee, such as in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-1., Chennai vs. M/S Paypal India Private Limited, Chennai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 450/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri P Sajit Kumar(JCIT) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Ashish– Ld. AR
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…n CIT v. Industrial Security & Intelligence India (P.) Ltd. [TCA No. 585 of 2015, dated 24-7-2015] and 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…

S.E.Palanivel, Salem, Tamilnadu vs. Amrit Raj Singh, Salem

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 352/CHNY/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am S.

Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…n CIT v. Industrial Security & Intelligence India (P.) Ltd. [TCA No. 585 of 2015, dated 24-7-2015] and 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…

Samay Projects Private Limited, Chennnai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 331/CHNY/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am S.

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

…n CIT v. Industrial Security & Intelligence India (P.) Ltd. [TCA No. 585 of 2015, dated 24-7-2015] and 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…

Benco Thermal Technologies Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed

ITA 281/CHNY/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yeswanth Kumar (CA)-Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajith Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…uided by interpretations of law, as pronounced by various judicial authorities particularly when there is no uniformity of stand on the issue of 'due date'. 3.4 The Ld. DR then referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Alom Extrusions Ltd. (319 ITR 306) wherein on a similar issue on interpretation of effective date, Hon’ble Supreme court held as under: "It is true that the Parliament has explicitly stated that Finance Act, 2003, will operate with effect from 1st April, 2004. However, the matter before us involves the principle of construction to be placed on the provisions of Finance Act, 2003.…

Sree Ram Constructions, No.77, Ramanuja Nagar, Uppilipalayam Post, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 273/CHNY/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am S.

…n CIT v. Industrial Security & Intelligence India (P.) Ltd. [TCA No. 585 of 2015, dated 24-7-2015] and 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…

Suresh Productions Entertainment LLP, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 134/CHNY/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am S.

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…n CIT v. Industrial Security & Intelligence India (P.) Ltd. [TCA No. 585 of 2015, dated 24-7-2015] and 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…

ACIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi vs. Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 5680/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Atra Tara Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Hrishikesh, CIT- DR
Section 22

…fficer, accordingly, made disallowance. 57. Before the ld. CIT(A), it was strongly contended that the amount has been deposited before filing return of income and, therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alome Extrusions 319 ITR 366 squarely apply. 58. The ld. CIT(A) was convinced with the contention of the assessee and deleted the disallowance. 59. Before us, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the Assessing Officer. 60. Per contra, the ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the ld. CIT(A). 61. We have carefully perused the orders of the aut…

ACIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi vs. Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 5679/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Atra Tara Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Hrishikesh, CIT- DR
Section 22

…fficer, accordingly, made disallowance. 57. Before the ld. CIT(A), it was strongly contended that the amount has been deposited before filing return of income and, therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alome Extrusions 319 ITR 366 squarely apply. 58. The ld. CIT(A) was convinced with the contention of the assessee and deleted the disallowance. 59. Before us, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the Assessing Officer. 60. Per contra, the ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the ld. CIT(A). 61. We have carefully perused the orders of the aut…

Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 5011/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Atra Tara Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Hrishikesh, CIT- DR
Section 22

…fficer, accordingly, made disallowance. 57. Before the ld. CIT(A), it was strongly contended that the amount has been deposited before filing return of income and, therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alome Extrusions 319 ITR 366 squarely apply. 58. The ld. CIT(A) was convinced with the contention of the assessee and deleted the disallowance. 59. Before us, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the Assessing Officer. 60. Per contra, the ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the ld. CIT(A). 61. We have carefully perused the orders of the aut…