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.

Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range- 2, New Delhi

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

ITA 5010/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…

Prahlad Narayan Bairwa, Jaipur vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 33/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

…of employees' contribution towards PF/ESIC. Most of the court decisions such as the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs AIMIL Ltd. 321 ITR 508 a.s well as the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306 dealt with the issue of deduction u/s 43B(b) of the Act which was pertaining to employers contribution PF/ESIC. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has observed in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (366 ITR 170) decision on the issue of delayed payment of employees contribution to PF/ESIC that there was no occasion before the Hon'ble Ap…

The Earth House Resorts LLP, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-2(3), Jaipur

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 28/JPR/2022[2019-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2022AY 2019-22
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

…of employees' contribution towards PF/ESIC. Most of the court decisions such as the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs AIMIL Ltd. 321 ITR 508 a.s well as the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306 dealt with the issue of deduction u/s 43B(b) of the Act which was pertaining to employers contribution PF/ESIC. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has observed in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (366 ITR 170) decision on the issue of delayed payment of employees contribution to PF/ESIC that there was no occasion before the Hon'ble Ap…

Jairaj, Jaipur vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 26/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

…of employees' contribution towards PF/ESIC. Most of the court decisions such as the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs AIMIL Ltd. 321 ITR 508 a.s well as the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306 dealt with the issue of deduction u/s 43B(b) of the Act which was pertaining to employers contribution PF/ESIC. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has observed in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (366 ITR 170) decision on the issue of delayed payment of employees contribution to PF/ESIC that there was no occasion before the Hon'ble Ap…

Jairaj, Jaipur vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 25/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

…of employees' contribution towards PF/ESIC. Most of the court decisions such as the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs AIMIL Ltd. 321 ITR 508 a.s well as the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306 dealt with the issue of deduction u/s 43B(b) of the Act which was pertaining to employers contribution PF/ESIC. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has observed in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (366 ITR 170) decision on the issue of delayed payment of employees contribution to PF/ESIC that there was no occasion before the Hon'ble Ap…

Jairaj, Jaipur vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 24/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

…of employees' contribution towards PF/ESIC. Most of the court decisions such as the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs AIMIL Ltd. 321 ITR 508 a.s well as the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306 dealt with the issue of deduction u/s 43B(b) of the Act which was pertaining to employers contribution PF/ESIC. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has observed in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (366 ITR 170) decision on the issue of delayed payment of employees contribution to PF/ESIC that there was no occasion before the Hon'ble Ap…

Pratap Technocrats Private Limited, Jaipur Rajasthan vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru/ DCIT, Cr.1 Jaipur, Bengaluru, Karnataka

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 18/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

…of employees' contribution towards PF/ESIC. Most of the court decisions such as the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs AIMIL Ltd. 321 ITR 508 a.s well as the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306 dealt with the issue of deduction u/s 43B(b) of the Act which was pertaining to employers contribution PF/ESIC. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has observed in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (366 ITR 170) decision on the issue of delayed payment of employees contribution to PF/ESIC that there was no occasion before the Hon'ble Ap…

Tandem Allied Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 750/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sachin Metha, ARFor Respondent: Sri.D.Kiran, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…nd ESI contribution amounting to Rs.24,53,002 for A.Y.2018-2019 and Rs.7,69,184 for A.Y.2019-2020 u/s 36(1)(va). 4. The assessee submitted the response to the proposal by relying on the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306 which supported the stand taken by the assessee that even though the contributions to employees state insurance and employees provident fund have been made belatedly, they have been paid within the return filing date as per section 139(1) and accordingly is liable for deduction. 5. The A.O. however did not accept the contention of the assessee a…

Tandem Allied Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 749/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sachin Metha, ARFor Respondent: Sri.D.Kiran, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…nd ESI contribution amounting to Rs.24,53,002 for A.Y.2018-2019 and Rs.7,69,184 for A.Y.2019-2020 u/s 36(1)(va). 4. The assessee submitted the response to the proposal by relying on the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306 which supported the stand taken by the assessee that even though the contributions to employees state insurance and employees provident fund have been made belatedly, they have been paid within the return filing date as per section 139(1) and accordingly is liable for deduction. 5. The A.O. however did not accept the contention of the assessee a…

Nitigya Ready Mix Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT CPC, Bengalore, Karnataka Bengalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1577/DEL/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Nitigya Ready Mix Pvt.Ltd., Vs Dcit, 510-511, 5Th Floor, Ild Trade Centre, Cpc, Sohna Road, Sector-47, Gurgaon, Bengalore. Haryana-122001. Pan-Aafcn7423G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Monika Agarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.02.2022

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

…jurisdiction; and therefore, deserves to be quashed as such. 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that disallowance made is contrary to judgment of Apex Court in the case of IT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 306 and, therefore the same is untenable and liable to be deleted as such. 6. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that intimation dated 17.10.20 19 is without reasons and therefore unreasonable is otherwise a nullity.” 3. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee filed its return of inco…

Computer Clinic India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1571/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Computer Clinic India Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, 301-A, Sagar Complex, Ward-6(2), New Rajdhani Enclave, Vikas Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi-110092. Pan-Aaacc5384N Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rahul Kant, Ar Respondent By Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.02.2022

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(X)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…sumes that s. 43B(b) applies to s. 36(1)(va) payments, a deduction would not be admissible because the s. 36(1)(va) payments are not 'otherwise allowable' if they are paid beyond the "due date". The decisions in Vinay Cement 213 CTR (SC) 268 & Alom Extrusions 319 ITR 306 (SC) are not an authority on the point that employees' contributions are also covered by s. 43B. Though in AIMIL 321 ITR 508 (Del) it was held that employees' contribution to EPF and ESI funds are covered by s. 43B, it cannot be followed because (i) the Court moved on the premise that employees' contribution is subject to clause (b) of s. 43B and…

Ess Ess Kay Enginering Company Private Limited, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4, Jalandhar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 32/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Vatta, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Trilochan Singh P.S. Khalsa, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…cisions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Punjab & ii) Haryana Court in the case of Hemla Embroidary Works (P) Ltd. 213 ITR 268 and other such decisions following the ratios of the judgements Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306, Vinay Cement Limited 213 ITR 268 AND CIT vs Mark Auto Industries, 358 ITR 43 (Pb. & Haryana High Court), as relied upon by the assessee. Disregarding the binding decisions of the Hon'ble ITAT Amritsar Bench in iii) case of Dy. CIT vs. J & K. Co-operative Housing Corp. (P) Ltd vide ITA No. 479, 495 and 496 (ASR/2020) 2. That the worthy CIT (App…

Sandhya Aqua Exports Pvt Ltd, Visakhapatnam vs. Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 203/VIZ/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 203/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2019-20) Sandhya Aqua Exports Pvt. Ltd.Mig- Vs. Dy.Commissioner / 25 A, Lawsons Bay Colony Asst.Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam Income Tax, Circle-4(1) Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aajcs2286C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Spg Mudaliar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 16.02.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri SPG Mudaliar, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

…de in view of the provisions of section 43B of the Act. In the case of CIT Vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 35 Taxman 616, the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan, after referring to the apex court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306 & CIT Vs. Vinay Cement Ltd. held that the deductions should be allowed for the payment of employees’ contribution made before the due date of filing of return. Similarly, in the case of CIT Vs. State Bank of Bikaner, the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court held that contribution paid after the due date under the respective Act, but before filing the ret…

Systematic Enterprises, Visakhapatnam vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 185/VIZ/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri I.Kama Sastry, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.P.G. Mudaliar, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (Through web-based video conferencing platform) BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU R L REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S. BALAKRISHNAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 184 & 185/VIZ/2021 (Asst. Year : 2018-19 & 2019-20) Systematic Enterprises, Vs. Income Tax Officer 13, Prince Apartments, Ward-3(1) CBM Compound, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam PAN No. ABVFS 3765 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri I.Kama Sastry, CA. Department by : Shri S.P.G. Mudaliar, Sr.DR Date of hearing : 03/02/2022. Date of pronouncement : 16/02/2022. O R D E R…

Systematic Enterprises, Visakhapatnam vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 184/VIZ/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri I.Kama Sastry, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.P.G. Mudaliar, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (Through web-based video conferencing platform) BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU R L REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S. BALAKRISHNAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 184 & 185/VIZ/2021 (Asst. Year : 2018-19 & 2019-20) Systematic Enterprises, Vs. Income Tax Officer 13, Prince Apartments, Ward-3(1) CBM Compound, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam PAN No. ABVFS 3765 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri I.Kama Sastry, CA. Department by : Shri S.P.G. Mudaliar, Sr.DR Date of hearing : 03/02/2022. Date of pronouncement : 16/02/2022. O R D E R…

Pragati Fashions P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dycti (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 569/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalepragati Fashions P Ltd., Vs. Dycti (Cpc) F.P.No. 455, Shree 1 St Floor, Prestige Sadguru Heights, Alpha, Bhavani Shankar Road, Beratenagrahara, Dadar (W) Hosur Road, Uttahalli Mumbai-400028. Hobli,Bangalore- 560100 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp1730H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Girish Dave.Sr.Counsel Respondent By : Shri. S.G. Menon.Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Shri. Girish Dave.Sr.CounselFor Respondent: Shri. S.G. Menon.Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…. CIT(A) and DCIT failed to appreciate that the payment of such contribution was nevertheless made before the due date of filing of Income Tax Returns and is therefore allowable in view of the Supreme Court Decision in the case of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306. 2 The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee company is engaged in the business.The assessee has filed the return of income for the A.Y 2018-19 on 30.10.2018 with a total income of Rs. 4,34,03,200/-.The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act, and the intimation dated 16.10.2019 was received through email, where the employee…

Pawan Kumar, Haryana vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1924/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, Senior DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…of income u/s 139(1), held that there was marginal delay in depositing the payment in the respective statute. Various decisions were cited on behalf of the assessee including the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of CIT vs. Atom Extrusions (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) and Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del.) and catena of other judgments. The ld. First Appellate Authority relied upon amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021 in the provisions of section 43B and the CBDT Circular No.22/2015 and also noted that there were conflicting decision of Hon’…

Pawan Kumar, Haryana vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1923/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, Senior DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…of income u/s 139(1), held that there was marginal delay in depositing the payment in the respective statute. Various decisions were cited on behalf of the assessee including the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of CIT vs. Atom Extrusions (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) and Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del.) and catena of other judgments. The ld. First Appellate Authority relied upon amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021 in the provisions of section 43B and the CBDT Circular No.22/2015 and also noted that there were conflicting decision of Hon’…

Cogwheel Facility Management Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1838/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2018-19 Cogwheel Facility Management Pvt. Vs Dcit, Ltd., J-128/1, 2Nd Floor, Cpc, Mohammadpur Village, Bangalore. Near Bhikaji Cama Place, Rk Puram, New Delhi. Pan: Aagcc1517K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : .02.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27Th August, 2020 Of The Cit(A)-2, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. That The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Order Of The Ao, Passed Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.23,55,432/- Made By Ao By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 3. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Ignoring The Well- Established Judicial Pronouncements Including That Of The Jurisdictional High Court. 4. That The Impugned Appellate Order Is Arbitrary, Illegal, Bad In Law & The Violation Of Rudimentary Principle Of Contemporary Jurisprudence. 5. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter, Vary And/Or Withdraw Any Or All The Above Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Ruchesh Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…scope of 143(l)(a), 36(l)(va) etc., alongwith the following judicial decisions :- i) CIT vs. Kichha Sugar Company Ltd. (Uttarakhand) ii) CIT vs. Vinay Cement Ltd., 213 CTR 268 (SC) iii) CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. & Anrs., 321 ITR 508 iv) CIT vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd., 319 ITR 306 2 4.1 The submissions made by the appellant needs to be evaluated in the context of legal provisions laid down in the Act. The same are enumerated hereunder:- 4.1.1 The legal provision > Section 36(1)(va) deals with deduction in respect of the sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of sub-section 2(24)(x)…

Franch Express Courier Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. The CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 523/CHNY/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.523/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Franch Express Courier Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Director Of No. 199, Hariyan Street, C-Pallavaram, Vs. Income Tax, Cpc, Chennai 600 043. Bengaluru 560 500. [Pan:Aadcf3624P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Vandana Vyas, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 31.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 28.09.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2019-20 On 30.10.2019 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹.39,17,200/-. The Cpc, Bengaluru Has Completed The 2

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Vyas, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम" । Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.523/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/s. Franch Express Courier Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Director of No. 199, Hariyan Street, C-Pallavaram, Vs. Income Tax, CPC, Chennai 600 043. Bengaluru 560 500. [PAN:AADCF3624P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Ms. Vandana Vyas, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/…