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.

Newage Fire Protection Engineers P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT Appeals National Faceless Appeal, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 680/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Mrs. Diva Singh & Shri Rifaur Rahmannewage Fire Protection Engineers Pvt. Ltd. 101, Champaklal Udyog Bhavan, Sion, Mumbai-400022. Pan: Aaccn9026C ............ Appellant Vs. Cit (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi. ............ Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Manish Sanghavi, C.A. Respondent By : Sh. Kishore Dhule, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/11/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/11/2021 Hearing Via Webex

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Sanghavi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Kishore Dhule, Sr. DR
Section 2Section 250Section 28Section 36Section 43Section 43B

…as also 5 been referred to. A perusal of the same shows that their Lordships were seized of the late payment of the employees contribution to P.F. Considering the position of law as settled by the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) and CIT Vs. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. (2014 366 ITR 1 (Bombay), their Lordships qua the employee contribution decided the issue in favour of the assessee. No doubt the said decision did not take into consideration these specific amendments carried out by the Finance Act, 2021, however, the issue of retrospective effect of specific am…

Nikhil Mohine, Parasia vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 38/JAB/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…apparently prospective, having been held as retrospective in nature, with some under the Act being as follows: CIT v. Calcutta Export Co. Ltd. [2012] 404 ITR 654 (SC); CIT v. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd.[2014] 367 ITR 466 (SC); CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC); Allied Motors (P.)Ltd. v. 3 ITA Nos. 37& 38/Jab/2021 (AY 2018-19& 2019-20) Nikhil Mohinev. Dy. CIT/Asst. DIT CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677 (SC); and Bagri Impex (P.)Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2013] 214 Taxman 305 (Cal), with the latter two by the Apex Court being in the context of s. 43B itself. The Explanations 4.2 The Explanations under reference read…

Nikhil Mohine, Chhindwara vs. DCIT, CPC, Benguluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 37/JAB/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…pparently prospective, having been held as retrospective in nature, with some under the Act being as follows: CIT v. Calcutta Export Co. Ltd. [2012] 404 ITR 654 (SC); CIT v. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 466 (SC); CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC); Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. v. 3 ITA Nos. 37 & 38/Jab/2021 (AY 2018-19 & 2019-20) Nikhil Mohine v. Dy. CIT/Asst. DIT CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677 (SC); and Bagri Impex (P.) Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2013] 214 Taxman 305 (Cal), with the latter two by the Apex Court being in the context of s. 43B itself. The Explanations 4.2 The Explanations under reference…

Ssurya Resorts Private Limited, Dharamshala vs. DCIT, CPC/ACIT, Circle, Palampur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 194/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Of Income Under Section 139(1), Hence It Is An Allowable Expenditure As Per The Judgment Of Honorable Sc In The Case Of Pr. Cit Vs Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. 84 Taxmnn.Com 185

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ ‘‘ए’, च"डीगढ़ च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ च"डीगढ़ च"डीगढ़ च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘A’ CHANDIGARH "ीमती "ीमती "दवा "ीमती "ीमती "दवा "दवा "सह "दवा "सह "सह, "याियक "सह "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं, एवं एवं एवं एवं "ीमती एवं "ीमती "ीमती अ"पूणा" "ीमती अ"पूणा" अ"पूणा" गु"ा अ"पूणा" गु"ा गु"ा, लेखा गु"ा लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य सद"य BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ ITA No. 194/CHD/2021 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील…

M/S. Brivas Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 845/CHNY/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.845/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, C.A &'For Respondent: Mr. AR V Sreenivasan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)

…ed the order of the assessment, thereby dismissed the appeals. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred further appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 306, decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V. Aimil Ltd. reported in 321 ITR 508 and that of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Venkateswara Electrical Industries P. Ltd. V. DCIT in ITA Nos.1344, 1345 and 1636/Mds/ 2014 dated 28.8.2014 held as follows: “5. Heard both sides. Perused orders of lower authorities and…

Arco Lab Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 455/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariandshri George George Kassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…f the Act. 1.2 The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law in disregarding the decision of jurisdictional Karnataka High Court in the case of Sabari Enterprises (2008) [298 ITR 141 (Kar)(HC)] along with Supreme court judgement in CIT v. Alorn Extrusions Ltd., [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC)], wherein it has been held that employees' contribution under PF and ESI Act, remitted after due dates prescribed under said statutes but before due date for filing return under section 139(1) is allowable as deduction 1.3. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in not appreciating the fact that multiple High Courts such as Karnataka, Mumb…

M/S. Trianz Holdings Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, ground 34 is allowed

ITA 2639/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.2639/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2015-2016 M/S.Trianz Holdings Pvt. Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner #165/2, 6Th Floor, Kalyani Of Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Magnum, Doraisanipalya, Iim Post Bennerghatta Road Bangalore – 560 076. Pan : Aafca8051P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2021 Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 30.10.2019. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2015-2016. 2. The Assesee Has Raised 36 Grounds In Its Memorandum Of Appeal. However, Learned Ar Had Argued Only Following Six Issues:-

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 14A

…ay High Court in the case of 'Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd.,' [2011] 330 ITR 175 [Bom] , wherein it is held thus: "13. By reason of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Alom Extrusions Limited [2009] 319 ITR 306 the employer's contribution was liable to be allowed, since it was deposited by the due date for the filing of the return. The peculiar position, however, as it obtains in the present case arises out of the fact that the disallowance which was effected by the Assessing Officer has not, the Court is informed, been challenged by the assessee. As a…

Sap India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Commissioner Income Tax (A) Bangalore-6, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 683/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)

…bay High Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd.,’ [2011] 330 ITR 175 [Bom], wherein it is held thus: “13. By reason of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Alom Extrusions Limited [2009] 319 ITR 306 the employer's contribution was liable to be allowed, since it was deposited by the due date for the filing of the return. The peculiar position, however, as it obtains in the present case arises out of the fact that the disallowance which was effected by the Assessing Officer has not, the Court is informed, been challenged by the assessee. As a…

Sap India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Commissioner Income Tax (A) Bangalore-6, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 682/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)

…bay High Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd.,’ [2011] 330 ITR 175 [Bom], wherein it is held thus: “13. By reason of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Alom Extrusions Limited [2009] 319 ITR 306 the employer's contribution was liable to be allowed, since it was deposited by the due date for the filing of the return. The peculiar position, however, as it obtains in the present case arises out of the fact that the disallowance which was effected by the Assessing Officer has not, the Court is informed, been challenged by the assessee. As a…

Bhagawanji Harish, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bangalore

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

ITA 380/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Karan Ganna, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…before CIT(A) that Employees share of ESI and PF contribution has been paid before the due date for filing of return u/s.139(1) of the Act and hence has been considered allowable on the basis of decision of Supreme Court in CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) and other cases such as CIT Vs Magus Customers Dialog (P) Ltd (Kar), CIT Vs Sabri Enterprises (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar), Consultants India P Ltd Vs CIT Bangalore III (2013) 597/34 Taxman.com 20 (Kar) Essae Teraija (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2014) 43 taxmann.com 33 (Karnataka). 4. The CIT(A) however upheld the order of the AO. With regard to employee…

Bhagawanji Harish, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bangalore

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

ITA 379/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Karan Ganna, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…before CIT(A) that Employees share of ESI and PF contribution has been paid before the due date for filing of return u/s.139(1) of the Act and hence has been considered allowable on the basis of decision of Supreme Court in CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) and other cases such as CIT Vs Magus Customers Dialog (P) Ltd (Kar), CIT Vs Sabri Enterprises (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar), Consultants India P Ltd Vs CIT Bangalore III (2013) 597/34 Taxman.com 20 (Kar) Essae Teraija (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2014) 43 taxmann.com 33 (Karnataka). 4. The CIT(A) however upheld the order of the AO. With regard to employee…

Mssv & Co., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 429/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor 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

…oyee’s share of PF contribution has been paid before the due date for filing of return u/s.139(1) of the Act and (this fact is not in dispute) hence has to be considered allowable on the basis of decision of Supreme Court in CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) and other cases such as CIT Vs Magus Customers Dialog (P) Ltd (Kar), CIT Vs Sabri Enterprises (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar), M/s Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd vs DCIT - [2014] 43 taxmann.com 33 (Karnataka) Consultants India P Ltd Vs CIT Bangalore III (2013) 597/34 Taxman.com 20 (Kar). 4. However the CPC by the impugned order dismissed the appeal of the…

Mssv & Co., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 428/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor 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

…oyee’s share of PF contribution has been paid before the due date for filing of return u/s.139(1) of the Act and (this fact is not in dispute) hence has to be considered allowable on the basis of decision of Supreme Court in CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) and other cases such as CIT Vs Magus Customers Dialog (P) Ltd (Kar), CIT Vs Sabri Enterprises (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar), M/s Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd vs DCIT - [2014] 43 taxmann.com 33 (Karnataka) Consultants India P Ltd Vs CIT Bangalore III (2013) 597/34 Taxman.com 20 (Kar). 4. However the CPC by the impugned order dismissed the appeal of the…

Mohammed Darus Salam, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 946/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Mohammed Darus Salam, Vs Dcit, 15/5A, Old Chandrawal, Civil Lines, Cpc, New Delhi-110054. Bengaluru. Pan-Afgpd5866E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manu K.Giri, Adv., Shri Aseem Chawla, Adv. & Ms. Sonia Dudeja, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11.11.2021

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…ling income tax return under section 36(1)(va)] for depositing employers' contributions to those funds". In arriving at this decision, Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs M/s Alom Extrusions Limited 319 ITR 306 and held that the same is not applicable to the "employees' contribution" to the PF Act. This judgment was again followed by Hon'ble' Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd. 115 taxmann.com 340. The issue is also covered against the assessee by CBDT Circular No. 22/2015 issued by the Department. A similar view has been taken…

M/S. Saysoft Tech Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 452/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Saysoft Tech Services Private Limited, Vs. Acit, No.38, First Floor, 12Th Main, 27Th Cross, Central Processing Centre, Jayanagar, 4Th Block, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 011. Pan : Aaocs 3596 M Assessee By : Shri. K. Yathish, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 28.07.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company. The Assesse Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.29,41,390/-. In An Intimation Dated 07.05.2020 Issued U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Added A Sum Of Rs. 12,98,450/- Representing Employees’ Share Of Contribution To Esi To The Extent Not Paid On Or Before The Due Date As Mentioned In Sec 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act 1961. Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Shri. K. Yathish, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…see that employees’ share of ESI has been paid before the due date for filing of return u/s.139(1) of the Act (this fact is not in dispute) and hence has been considered allowable on the basis of decision of Supreme Court in CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) and other cases such as CIT Vs Magus Customers Dialog (P) Ltd (Kar), CIT Vs Sabri Enterprises (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar), Consultants India P Ltd Vs CIT Bangalore III (2013) 597/34 Taxman.com 20 (Kar). 4. With regard to employee’s share of contribution to PF and ESI, the CIT(A) referred to the amendment made to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of th…

M/S. Sterling Urban Developments Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Sterling Urban Developments Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, 8, Level – 5 – Prestige Nebula, Circle – 6(1)(2), Cubbon Road, Bengaluru. Opp To It Office Building, Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aaacf 9183 C Assessee By : Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…so far as contribution, the same has been paid before the due date for filing of return u/s.139(1) of the Act (this fact is not in dispute) and hence has been considered allowable on the basis of decision of Supreme Court in CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) and other cases such as CIT Vs Magus Customers Dialog (P) Ltd (Kar), CIT Vs Sabri Enterprises (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar), Consultants India P Ltd Vs CIT Bangalore III (2013) 597/34 Taxman.com 20 (Kar). Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Central Processing Centre (CPC), 4. assessee filed application under section 154 of the Act on 08.06.2…

Sonicwall Technology Systems India Private Limited ( Formerly Known As Dell Software India Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer (International Taxation), Ward-1(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 419/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Sonicwall Technology Systems India Vs. Ito, Private Limited Ward International Taxation – 1(2), (Formerly Known As Dell Software India Pvt. Ltd.,) Bengaluru. Embassy Tech Village 3Rd & 4Th Floor, Block-F, Devarabisanahalli, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aaacq 1441 N Assessee By : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Additional Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 08.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Additional CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 13Section 139Section 139(1)Section 154Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…case of the assessee that in so far as contribution, the same has been paid before the due date for filing of return u/s.139(1) of the Act and hence has been considered allowable on the basis of decision of Supreme Court in CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) and other cases such as CIT Vs Magus Customers Dialog (P) Ltd (Kar), CIT Vs Sabri Enterprises (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar), Consultants India P Ltd Vs CIT Bangalore III (2013) 597/34 Taxman.com 20 (Kar). Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Central Processing Centre (CPC), 4. assessee filed application under section 154 of the Act on 07.08.2…

Everestims Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 408/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. Shambu Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Additional CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…was the case of the assessee that employee share of PF and ESI has been paid before the due date for filing of return u/s.139(1) of the Act and hence has been considered allowable on the basis of decision of Supreme Court in CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) and other cases such as CIT Vs Magus Customers Dialog (P) Ltd (Kar), CIT Vs Sabri Enterprises (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar), Consultants India P Ltd Vs CIT Bangalore III (2013) 597/34 Taxman.com 20 (Kar). 4. With regard to employee’s share of contribution to PF and ESI, the CIT(A) referred to the amendment made to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of th…

Everestims Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 407/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. Shambu Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Additional CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…was the case of the assessee that employee share of PF and ESI has been paid before the due date for filing of return u/s.139(1) of the Act and hence has been considered allowable on the basis of decision of Supreme Court in CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) and other cases such as CIT Vs Magus Customers Dialog (P) Ltd (Kar), CIT Vs Sabri Enterprises (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar), Consultants India P Ltd Vs CIT Bangalore III (2013) 597/34 Taxman.com 20 (Kar). 4. With regard to employee’s share of contribution to PF and ESI, the CIT(A) referred to the amendment made to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of th…

Aspiration Advertising Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Processing Centre, Bangalore

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

ITA 341/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Shilpa N. C, Additional CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.340, 341/Bang/2021 Assessment Years : 2018-19, 2019-20 M/s. Aspiration Advertising Private Limited, Vs. DCIT, No.301, No.16, Golden Bell Apartments, Central Processing Centre, 8th A Cross, Kodihalli, Bengaluru. Bengaluru. PAN : AAECA 7711 M Assessee by : None Revenue by : Smt. Shilpa N. C, Additional CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru Date of hearing : 11.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 12.10.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice President Theseare appeals filed by t…