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. Cadopt Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 726/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.R.E.Balasubramaniyam, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 3Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…wherein the CPC proposed to disallow Provident fund and ESI contribution amounting to Rs.5,15,994 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…

Sri. P. Harshavardhana Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 736/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2019-20 Shri. Puttireddi Harshavardhana Reddy, Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, No.401/4 14Th Main, Venkateshwara Lyt Central Processing Centre, Madiwala, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 068. Pan : Aebpr 8378 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor 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 : 2019-20 Shri. Puttireddi Harshavardhana Reddy, Vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, No.401/4 14th Main, Venkateshwara Lyt Central Processing Centre, Madiwala, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 068. PAN : AEBPR 8378 D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 08.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 08.02.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice President…

Devarayapatana Thimmappa Paramesha, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 727/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri. Devarayapatana Thimmappa Paramesha, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income No.311, Block B3, Sobha Opal, 39Th Cross, Tax, 18Th Main, Jayanagar 4Th Block, Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru – 560 041. Bengaluru. Pan : Acopp 0450 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, 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 Shri. Devarayapatana Thimmappa Paramesha, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income No.311, Block B3, Sobha Opal, 39th Cross, Tax, 18th Main, Jayanagar 4th Block, Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru – 560 041. Bengaluru. PAN : ACOPP 0450 F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CA Revenue by : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 08.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 08.02.2022 O R D E R Per N. V.…

Sri, Ramachandra Naveen, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 710/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2019-20 Shri. Ramachandra Naveen, Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, No.4140 Sam Chambers, 80 Feet Road, Central Processing Centre, Girinagar, 4Th Phase, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 085. Pan : Acvpn 6688 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Vijay Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Vijay Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh, 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 : 2019-20 Shri. Ramachandra Naveen, Vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, No.4140 Sam Chambers, 80 Feet Road, Central Processing Centre, Girinagar, 4th Phase, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 085. PAN : ACVPN 6688 E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Vijay Kumar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Sankar Ganesh, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 07.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 07.02.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice President : V. Vasude…

Sivan Securities Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 708/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Sivan Securities Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 23/2, Coffeeday Square, Income Tax, Vittal Mallya Road, Cpc, Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaccs5138G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri C. Ramesh, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 07-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.10.2021 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Opposed To The Facts Of The Case & Law Applicable To It. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.11,05,657/- Invoking The Provisions Of Section 143(1)(A)(Ii) Of The Act, Holding That The Said Amount Is Assessable Under The Provisions Of Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CA

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/s. Sivan Securities Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner of No. 23/2, Coffeeday Square, Income Tax, Vittal Mallya Road, CPC, Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Vs. PAN: AACCS5138G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri C. Ramesh, CA : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue by CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 07-02-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 07-02-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal by the assessee has been filed by assessee ag…

Vishal Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 511/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, 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.510 and 511/Bang/2021 Assessment Years : 2018-19 and 2019-20 M/s. Vishal Enterprises, Vs. DCIT, No.539, CMH Road, Central Processing Centre, Indiranagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 034. PAN : AADFV 3616 Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CA Revenue by : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 07.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 07.02.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice President : V. Vasudevan, Vice Pre…

Vishal Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 510/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, 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.510 and 511/Bang/2021 Assessment Years : 2018-19 and 2019-20 M/s. Vishal Enterprises, Vs. DCIT, No.539, CMH Road, Central Processing Centre, Indiranagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 034. PAN : AADFV 3616 Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CA Revenue by : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 07.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 07.02.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice President : V. Vasudevan, Vice Pre…

Shree Shyam Designs Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 700/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Shree Shyam Designs Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, No.50/1A/514/2/1, Shri Rajarajeshwari Central Processing Centre, Arcade, 2Nd Floor, Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru. Veerannapalya, Nagawara, Bengaluru – 560 045. Pan : Aakcs 8509 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. C. A. Madhukeshwar Hegde, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan: V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. C. A. Madhukeshwar Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(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 “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2019-20 M/s. Shree Shyam Designs Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, No.50/1A/514/2/1, Shri Rajarajeshwari Central Processing Centre, Arcade, 2nd Floor, Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru. Veerannapalya, Nagawara, Bengaluru – 560 045. PAN : AAKCS 8509 D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. C. A. Madhukeshwar Hegde, CA Revenue by : Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 03.02.2022 Date of Pronouncem…

Transsys Solutions Pvt Ltd, Kodambakkam vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 489/CHNY/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.489/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Transsys Solutions Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Director Of Plot. Super A 16-17, Rr Towers, Tvk Vs. Income Tax, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Cpc, Bengaluru 560 500. Chennai 600 032. [Pan:Aadct4603N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Pawan Bohra, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2022 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 21.09.2021 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 25.10.2019. The Cpc, Bengaluru Has Completed The Assessment Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Bohra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

…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…

Sunny International Limited, Haryana Chandigarh vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru, Karnataka Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1627/DEL/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Sh. Rama Kanta Panda & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudhry

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36Section 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. 5.2 We observe that although the ld. CIT(A) has considered the judgments relied upon by the Assessee as observed in its order at para no. 5.3 to the effect “however the case law quoted by the Appellant and some other Courts have appli…

Sunny International Limited, Haryana Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru, Karnataka Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1626/DEL/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Sh. Rama Kanta Panda & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudhry

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 250Section 36Section 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. 5.2 We observe that although the ld. CIT(A) has considered the judgments relied upon by the Assessee as observed in its order at para no. 5.3 to the effect “however the case law quoted by the Appellant and some other Courts have appli…

Commercial Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd., Allahabad vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 15/ALLD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad20 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh.S K Jaiswal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)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. 14 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Commercial Auto S…

M/S Pagro Frozen Foods Private Limited, Mohali vs. DCIT, CPC//ITO-Ward-2(3), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 331/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Return.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr.DR

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

…y Mills (P) Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 167(P&H). The jurisdictional High Court relying upon its own decision in the case of CIT Vs Rai Agro Industries 334 ITR 122 and considering the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306 (S.C) have addressed the legal position, though it need be clarified that the decision rendered was in the context of amendments carried out by way of Second Proviso to Section 43B which was omitted by Finance Act, 2003. This Amendment was held to be clarificatory and hence would operate retrospectively. In the facts of the present case, Amend…

Saraswati Agro Chemicals (India) Pvt.Ltd, Mohali vs. DCIT, CPC/ DCIT Circle -6(1), Chandigarh

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 158/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: The Filing Of Return Of Income.” 3. The Ld. Ar Inviting Attention To The Impugned Order

For Appellant: Shri Akshun Gupta,CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 250(6)Section 43B

…Mills (P) Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 167(P&H). The jurisdictional High Court relying upon its own decision in the case of CIT Vs Rai Agro Industries 334 ITR 122 and considering the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306 (S.C) has addressed the legal position. It need be clarified that the decision rendered was in the context of amendments carried out by way of Second ITA 158&159 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2018-19 & 2019-20 Page 9 of 10 Proviso to Section 43B which was omitted by Finance Act, 2003. This Amendment was held to be clarificatory and he nce held would operate…

M/S Reeford Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Zirakpur vs. DCIT/ACIT, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 343/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavm/S Reeford Ventures Pvt. Ltd., बनाम Deputy Commissioner Of Ka 17/160 Behind Oasia Resort, Income Tax, Cpc, Zirakpur. Bangalore. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aagcr3442N

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvFor Respondent: Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(va)

…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 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…

Shakti Apifoods Private Limited, Sangrur vs. ADIT, CPC/ DCIT-Circle-IV, Ludhiana

In the result, the addition so made towards the provision for gratuity amounting to Rs

ITA 272/CHANDI/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Jan 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshakti Apifoods Private Limited. बनाम The Assessing Officer, Malerkotla Road, Circle-Iv(1), Sangrur. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aamcs8546C

For Appellant: Shri Navneet Sehgal, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…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 43, CIT Vs. Kamal Family Trust (2013), 219 Taxman 81 and 4 A.Y.2019-20 CIT Vs. Nuchem Limited, 59 Taxmann.com 455. It was submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has relied…

Smt. Manju Jindal, Ludhiana vs. JCIT, Ludhiana

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 350/CHANDI/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 348 To 350/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 To 2019-20 Smt. Manju Jindal, The Cpc, बनाम 390-A, Industrial Area-1, Banglore Ludhiana -141003 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Acvpj3723G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjit Singh, CIT

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, “B”, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 348 to 350/CHD/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 to 2019-20 Smt. Manju Jindal, The CPC, बनाम 390-A, Industrial Area-1, Banglore Ludhiana -141003 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ACVPJ3723G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Hearing though video Conferencing "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh. Sarabjit Singh, CIT सुनवाई क" तार$ख/Date…

Smt. Manju Jindal, Ludhiana vs. JCIT, Ludhiana

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 349/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 348 To 350/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 To 2019-20 Smt. Manju Jindal, The Cpc, बनाम 390-A, Industrial Area-1, Banglore Ludhiana -141003 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Acvpj3723G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjit Singh, CIT

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, “B”, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 348 to 350/CHD/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 to 2019-20 Smt. Manju Jindal, The CPC, बनाम 390-A, Industrial Area-1, Banglore Ludhiana -141003 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ACVPJ3723G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Hearing though video Conferencing "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh. Sarabjit Singh, CIT सुनवाई क" तार$ख/Date…

Smt. Manju Jindal, Ludhiana vs. JCIT, Ludhiana

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 348/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 348 To 350/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 To 2019-20 Smt. Manju Jindal, The Cpc, बनाम 390-A, Industrial Area-1, Banglore Ludhiana -141003 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Acvpj3723G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjit Singh, CIT

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, “B”, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 348 to 350/CHD/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 to 2019-20 Smt. Manju Jindal, The CPC, बनाम 390-A, Industrial Area-1, Banglore Ludhiana -141003 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ACVPJ3723G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Hearing though video Conferencing "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh. Sarabjit Singh, CIT सुनवाई क" तार$ख/Date…

M/S. Shabari Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 482/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ashwin D.Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM ITA No.481/Bang/2021: Asst.Year 2018-2019 ITA No.482/Bang/2021: Asst.Year 2019-2020 M/s.Shabari Enterprises The Deputy Commissioner of No.30, Main Road Kodi Income-tax, Circle 4(2)(1) v. Bangalore. Whitefield Bengaluru – 560 066. PAN : AAUFS9509E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Ashwin D.Rao, CA Respondent by : Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 06.01.2022 Date of Hearing : 06.01.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, JM These appeals at the instance of…

CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd.

What is CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd.

M/S. Cadopt Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

Sri. P. Harshavardhana Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

Devarayapatana Thimmappa Paramesha, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

Sri, Ramachandra Naveen, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

Sivan Securities Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

Vishal Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

Vishal Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

Shree Shyam Designs Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

Transsys Solutions Pvt Ltd, Kodambakkam vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

Sunny International Limited, Haryana Chandigarh vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru, Karnataka Bengaluru

Sunny International Limited, Haryana Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru, Karnataka Bengaluru

Commercial Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd., Allahabad vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru

M/S Pagro Frozen Foods Private Limited, Mohali vs. DCIT, CPC//ITO-Ward-2(3), Chandigarh

Saraswati Agro Chemicals (India) Pvt.Ltd, Mohali vs. DCIT, CPC/ DCIT Circle -6(1), Chandigarh

M/S Reeford Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Zirakpur vs. DCIT/ACIT, Chandigarh

Shakti Apifoods Private Limited, Sangrur vs. ADIT, CPC/ DCIT-Circle-IV, Ludhiana

Smt. Manju Jindal, Ludhiana vs. JCIT, Ludhiana

Smt. Manju Jindal, Ludhiana vs. JCIT, Ludhiana

Smt. Manju Jindal, Ludhiana vs. JCIT, Ludhiana

M/S. Shabari Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(2)(1), Bangalore