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 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 43B Section 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 43b section 2(24)section 43 section 36(1)section 36 section 139(1)section 139 section 143(1)section 13 prescribed

Judgments citing CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd.

Tiger 4 India Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-25(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 377/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member ITA No. 377/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 ITA No. 378/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Tiger 4 India Ltd., Vs ACIT, 7, Lower Ground Floor, L.S.C. B-1, Circle-25(2), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AADCT3974E Assessee by : Sh. S. K. Bansal, CA Revenue by : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 05.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 08.02.2024 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeals have been filed by…

Glory Shipmanagement Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC Delhi, Delhi

Accordingly, Ground no 2 is dismissed

ITA 3149/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3149/MUM/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Glory Shipmanagement Private Limited, 504, Abhay Steel House, 22 Baroda Street, Masjid (East), Mumbai - 400009 [PAN: AACCG2684H] ...... Appellant Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Centralized Processing Centre, Delhi Vs .......... .... Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : None For the Responden

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 50CSection 55ASection 56(2)(x)

…emove an apparent incongruity, such an amendment has to be treated as effective from the date on which the law, containing such an undue hardship or incongruity, was introduced as held by Hon Supreme Court in CIT v. Alom Enterprises Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306/227 CTR 417. 10 21. In view of above, respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench in Maria Fernandes Cheryl (supra) we do not find any infirmity in the orders of the ld CIT (A) in applying the tolerance band limit of 10 % in the impugned assessment year also and thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 1,51,20,900/-. Accordingly, Grou…

Megha Yadav, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 2(5), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 448/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: None

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member ITA No. 448/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Megha Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, H.No. 2183, Sector-4, Urban Estate, Ward-2(5), Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 Gurgaon (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ACXPY5403E Assessee by : None Date of Hearing: 02.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 18.01.2024 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 28.12.2022. Sinc…

M/S. Ampar Co-Operative Agriculture Society Limited, Udupi vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Udupi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 are allowed while the appeal for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

ITA 796/BANG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Akshaya K.S., A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Nischal, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

…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…

M/S. Ampar Co-Operative Agriculture Society Limited, Udupi vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Udupi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 are allowed while the appeal for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

ITA 795/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Akshaya K.S., A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Nischal, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

Sm Workforce Private Limited, Bhiwadi vs. ITO, Ward, Bhiwadi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 426/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143Section 154Section 2Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 426/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 cuke SM Workforce Private Limited ITO, Vs. Shop No. G-19, Big Bazar, Near Ward, Bhiwadi Central Market, Nanglia, Tehsil- Tijara, Bhiwadi LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAUCS 0570 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : None jktLo dh v…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 3/RPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2 & 3/Rpr/2023 Co Nos. 19 & 20/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K Meena, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

…lowability of the assessee’s claim for deduction of delayed deposit of employee’s share of contribution towards labor welfare funds there was a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alom Extrusions Limited, [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC) [reversing the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in CIT Vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 137 (Bom)] favoring the assessee. Also, there were certain Hon’ble High Courts that took a view in favor of the assessee’s on the aforesaid issue. As the claim of the assessee company for deduction of the delayed deposit of the employees…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 2/RPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K Meena, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

The Commissioner of Income Tax - International Taxation -1 vs. Augustus Capital Pte. Ltd

The appeal is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms

ITA/405/2022HC Delhi30 Nov 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 9(1)(i)

…Page 9 of 23 Ors., (1980) 1 SCC 499; Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (2004) 8 SCC 1; Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1997) 3 SCC 472; Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd., (2008) 319 ITR 306 (SC); Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata XII vs. Calcutta Exports Company, (2018) 16 SCC 686; Commissioner of Income Tax I, Ahmedabad vs. Gold Coin Health Food Private Ltd., (2008) 9 SCC 622; Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit & Ors. vs. Dr. Manu & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 640; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Naresh Kumar, (2014) 362 I…

The Commissioner of Income Tax - International Taxation -1 vs. Augustus Capital Pte. Ltd

The appeal is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms

ITA-405/2022HC Delhi30 Nov 2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 9(1)(i)

Shri Govind Singh, Rewa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Satna

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is dismissed

ITA 11/JAB/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. K.P Dewani, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

…High Courts of Bombay, Himachal Pradesh, Calcutta, Guwahati and Delhi have favoured the interpretation beneficial to the 3 Govind Singh assessee. The Hon’ble Apex Bench effectively reversed the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (1 SCC 489) relied upon by the assessee. 3. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I in CA No. 2833/2016 vide order dated 12.10.2022 observed that there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts viz., the employers’ contribution and employees’ contribution required to…

Gour Road Tar Coat Private Limited, Jabalpur vs. ACIT Circle 2(1), Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is dismissed

ITA 31/JAB/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Sachin Kumar Bajpai, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Shravan Kumar Gotru, CIT- DR

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

…eas the Hon’ble High Courts of Bombay, Himachal Pradesh, Calcutta, Guwahati and Delhi have favoured the interpretation beneficial to the assessee. The Hon’ble Apex Bench effectively reversed the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (1 SCC 489) relied upon by the assessee. 3 M/s Gour Road Tar Coat P. Ltd., 3. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I in CA No. 2833/2016 vide order dated 12.10.2022 observed that there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts viz., the employers’ contribution and e…

Mp Power Management Co.Ltd., Jabalpur vs. ACIT Circle 2(1), Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 65/JAB/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Nov 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Mehrotra, JCIT-DR

Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…eas the Hon’ble High Courts of Bombay, Himachal Pradesh, Calcutta, Guwahati and Delhi have favoured the interpretation beneficial to the assessee. The Hon’ble Apex Bench effectively reversed the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (1 SCC 489) relied upon by the assessee. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I in CA No. 2833/2016” vide order dated 12.10.2022 observed that there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts viz., the employers’ contribution and employees’ contribution required t…

M/S. Jai Enterprises, Raipur vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 107/RPR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.107/Rpr/2021) (Assessment Year: 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "यायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी र"वश सूद, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ण खोड़"पया, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM (ITA No.107/RPR/2021) (Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/s Jai Enterprises, V Assistant Director of Income Tax, HIG-25, Shailendra Nagar, s Centralized Processing Center (CPC), Raipur (C.G.)- 492001 Income Tax Department, Bangaluru (KAR)-560500 PAN: AAEFJ0514A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) . . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CA राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Satya Pr…

Tropical Agro System India Private Limited, Chennai vs. ADIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 657/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Nov 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.657/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Tropical Agro System India The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, No. 72, Marshalls Vs. Corporate Ward – 6(1), Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. Chennai. [Pan:Aaact4250E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2023 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 24.06.2022 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 Declaring The Total Income At ₹.51,46,48,806/-. The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Processed Under 2

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 41Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.657/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/s. Tropical Agro System India The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, No. 72, Marshalls Vs. Corporate Ward – 6(1), Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. Chennai. [PAN:AAACT4250E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent by : Sh…

Pradeep Kumar Dhurve, Durg vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Bhilai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 302/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 302/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pradeep Kumar Dhurve Near Pawan Kirana Store, Sangram Chowk, Prem Nagar, Sikola Bhata, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan : Aanpd6067H

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 302/RPR/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pradeep Kumar Dhurve Near Pawan Kirana Store, Sangram Chowk, Prem Nagar, Sikola Bhata, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 PAN : AANPD6067H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri R.B Doshi, CA Revenue by : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hear…

R.D. Enterprises, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward59(6), Delhi

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

ITA 1014/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. P. P. Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT-DR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Ms. Astha Chandra, Judicial member ITA No. 1014/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year: 2019-20 R. D. Enterprises, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-308, G.D. Colony, Mayur Vihar, Ward-59(6), Phase-III, Delhi-110096 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAKFR3537K Assessee by : Sh. P. P. Singh, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 30.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 17.11.2023 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by assessee against the order of National Face…

Chandra Shekhar Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 54(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2669/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Mago, CAFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR

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

…eas the Hon’ble High Courts of Bombay, Himachal Pradesh, Calcutta, Guwahati and Delhi have favoured the interpretation beneficial to the assessee. The Hon’ble Apex Bench effectively reversed the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (1 SCC 489) relied upon by the assessee. 4. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I in CA No. 2833/2016 vide order dated 12.10.2022 observed that there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts viz., the employers’ contribution and employees’ contribution required to b…

Freedom Shoes LLP, Agra vs. Income Tax Officer, Agra

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 29/AGR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra08 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: The Due Date For Availing Deduction. In The Cases Before The Hon’Ble Apex Court, The Employers Had Belatedly Deposited Their Employees' Contribution Towards The Epf & Esi, Considering The Due Dates Under The Relevant Provisions Of The Act. The Assessing Officer Ruled That By Virtue Of Section 36(1)(Va) Read With Section 2(24)(X) Of The It Act, Such Sums Received By The Appellants Constituted "Income". It Was Held That Those Amounts Could Not Have

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

…eas the Hon’ble High Courts of Bombay, Himachal Pradesh, Calcutta, Guwahati and Delhi have favoured the interpretation beneficial to the assessee. The Hon’ble Apex Bench effectively reversed the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (1 SCC 489) relied upon by the assessee. 3. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I in CA No. 2833/2016 vide order dated 12.10.2022 observed that there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts viz., the employers’ contribution and employees’ contribution required to b…

Freedom Shoes LLP, Agra vs. Income Tax Officer, Agra

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 28/AGR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra08 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

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

…eas the Hon’ble High Courts of Bombay, Himachal Pradesh, Calcutta, Guwahati and Delhi have favoured the interpretation beneficial to the assessee. The Hon’ble Apex Bench effectively reversed the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (1 SCC 489) relied upon by the assessee. 3. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I in CA No. 2833/2016 vide order dated 12.10.2022 observed that there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts viz., the employers’ contribution and employees’ contribution required to b…