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.

Onward Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’ appeal stand partly allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 266/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.266/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1785/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Onward Technologies Limited Dcit-7(1) Sterling Centre, 2Nd Floor Room No.622, 6Th Floor बिाम/ Dr. Annie Besant Road Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Marg Vs. Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-3742-J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1793/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dcit-7(1) Onward Technologies Limited Room No.622, 6Th Floor बिाम/ Sterling Centre, 2Nd Floor Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Marg Dr. Annie Besant Road Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Worli, Mumbai-400 018 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-3742-J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : S/Shri J.P. Bairagra & Ashish Bairagra - Ld. Ars Revenue By : Shri Manpreet S. Duggal- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 23/07/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 02/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: S/Shri J.P. Bairagra & Ashish Bairagra - Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri Manpreet S. Duggal- Ld. Sr. DR

Section 10ASection 92Section 92B

…deduction of late payment of employees’ PF and ESIC in terms of decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2006-07 which has been rendered after considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009; 319 ITR 306) and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V/s Aimil Ltd. (2010; 321 ITR 508). The Ld. AR has also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT V/s Rajasthan State Beverages Corp. Ltd. (84 Taxmann.com 185); CIT V/s Vinay Cement Ltd. (213 CTR 268) as well as the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Ghatg…

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 9, New Delhi vs. Tv Today Network Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 5204/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Senior DR

Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)

…ment in the case of CIT vs. Aimil Ltd [(2010) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) wherein the jurisdictional High Court has allowed the appeal on this point relying on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusions Limited (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) as well as in CIT vs. Vinay Cement Ltd. 213 ITR 268 (SC) where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP of the Revenue on this point. Accordingly, the disallowance on this point (Rs.43,14,198/-) is deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed. 19. Ld. AR for the assessee supporting the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) contended that bo…

Maksat Technologies (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-16(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1540/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Maksat Technologies Pvt Ltd, Vs. Dcit, E-13, Ground Floor, Block No. B-1, Circle-16(1), Mohan Cooperative Estate, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaccm7831L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I. P. Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sohil Malik, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 32

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K.N.CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) Maksat Technologies Pvt Ltd, Vs. DCIT, E-13, Ground Floor, Block No. B-1, Circle-16(1), Mohan Cooperative Estate, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AACCM7831L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri I. P. Bansal, Adv Shri Vivek Bansal, Adv Revenue by: Shri Sohil Malik, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 31/03/2021 Date of pronouncement 30/06/2021 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT (A…

DCIT 14 (2) (1), Mumbai vs. Positive Packaging Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result grounds raised by the revenue in this regard are dismissed

ITA 4103/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Bhaumik Goda, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, DR

Section 115Section 143Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 43B

…he case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in relying on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case CIT vs Ghatge Patil Transporters Ltd. [2014] 368 ITR 749 (Bom), wherein the Supreme Court decision in the case of Atom Extension Ltd. [319 ITR 306] has been followed, without having regard to the fact that the in that case, Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the employers contribution whereas the present case involves employee's contribution. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in holding that the amended provision of section 43B cove…

Suryauday Spinning Mills Private Limited, Secunderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 157/HYD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 May 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

For Appellant: Sri Sidharth Toshnival, AdvFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, D.R

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

…before the CIT(Appeals), stating that the employees contribution to PF and ESI was deposited beyond the due date, but before filing of return of income. Assessee relied upon the judgment of hon’ble Supreme Court in the case CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) in support of its claim of deduction. ITA No. 157/Hyd/2021 AY 2018-19 M/s Suryauday Spinning Mills Pvt.Ltd. 2.1. The CIT(A), however, held that in the case of Alom Extrusions (supra), the hon’ble Supreme Court has not laid down any proposition of law with regard to allowability of deduction in respect of belated payment of employee’s contr…

Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai

Appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 3379/MUM/2009[2001-02]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2021AY 2001-02

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry (Ld. SrFor Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra-CIT DR and Shri Tharian Oommen-Ld. Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)

…s issue stood covered in assessee‟s favor by the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT V/s Hindustan Organic Chemical Ltd. (366 ITR 1) wherein Hon‟ble High Court, following the decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court in CIT V/s Alom Extrusions Ltd. (319 ITR 306) held that amendments to the said section brought about by the Finance Act, 2003 with effect from 1st April, 2004 were retrospective in nature and would operate from 1st April, 1988. This being the case, the impugned disallowance stands deleted. Ground No.7 stand partly allowed. 14. Disallowance out of bad debts and advances written off : 14.1 Th…

The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Texas Instruments India Pvt Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/141/2020HC Karnataka21 Apr 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

Section 143(2)Section 194Section 2Section 206ASection 40Section 80J

…I.T.A. NO.141 OF 2020 c/w I.T.A. NO.151 OF 2020 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ I.T.A. No.141 OF 2020 C/W I.T.A. No.151 OF 2020 IN I.T.A. NO.141 OF 2020 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX LTU, 7TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560095 2. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LTU, 7TH FLOOR BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095 … APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND,ADVOCATE-PH) AND: TE…

DCIT Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai vs. Talentpro India Hr. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 265/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 265/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Talentpro India Hr Pvt. Ltd., New No. 64, Old No. 30, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax, Vs. Corporate Circle 3(1), Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 008. [Pan:Aabcp9823A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Sanjeev Aditya, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai Dated 25.10.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Made Towards Belated Remittance Of Employees’ Contribution Of Pf & Esi, Which Was Disallowed Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2014-15 On 26.09.2014 Admitting Total

For Appellant: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri M. Sanjeev Aditya, C.A

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…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…

Soni Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 756/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

For Appellant: None (written submission)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jt. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

…oration Ltd. [2017] 250 Taxman 0016 (SC): The HC allowed the claim against which SLP was filed by the Dept. Held - We do not find any merit in this petition. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (d) CIT Vs. M/s Alom Extrusions Limited [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC) (e) CIT Vs Vinay Cement Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR (St.) 1 (SC) (f) CIT Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd 363 ITR 307 (Raj) (g) CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. 366 ITR 163 (Raj.) (h) CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur 363 ITR 70 (Raj.) In view of above, your honours are therefore humbly requested to please delete the addition…

DCIT, Circle- 3(2), New Delhi vs. Azure Switchgear Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6221/DEL/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6221/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Acit, Vs Azure Switchgear Pvt. Ltd., 109, 1St Floor, Hans Bhawan, Circle-3(2), New Delhi-110002 Wing-Ii, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahca2141E

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. V. K. Kataria, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 68Section 80I

…e of filing of the return of income u/s 139(1). Since, the decision of the ld. CIT (A) is in ITA No. 6221/Del/2017 & 6 CO No. 01/Del/2018 Azure Switchgear Pvt. Ltd. consonance with the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs ALOM Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306, we decline to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT (A). Addition/Seized material: 11. The AO observed that as per page 121 of Annexure A-2 of Seized material total sales of Rs.2,72,210/- on output gate pass rejected was not recorded in the books of account of the assessee company. The AO further added that the assessee has offered the same…

DCIT Corporate Circle 2 (1), Chennai vs. M/S Frendi Fashions Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1438/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr.B.Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: 16.03.2021

Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43(5)Section 43B

…ion of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Industrial Security & Intelligence India Pvt. Ltd., in TCA No.585 & 586 of 2015 dated 24.07.2015 and such finding was further supported by the decision of the Hon’ble reported in 319 ITR 306, where it was held that if employees contribution to PF & ESI is remitted on or before due date for furnishing return of income filed u/s.139(1) of the Act, then such payments need to be allowed as deduction, irrespective of the fact that such payment has been remitted beyond due date specified under the respective Acts. The Hon'ble Supreme 9…

Manoj Kumar, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-62(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 978/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 143(3)

…he case of CIT Vs Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, 366 ITR 170 upheld the disallowance. While delivering the above decision, Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has considered the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Alom Extrusions Ltd 319 ITR 306. 5.2 Before us, the Learned Counsel of the assessee submitted that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT-7 Vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) P. Ltd. in ITA 983/2018 in decision dated 10/09/2018 has held that payment of employees’ 6 ITA No.978/Del./2018 contribution of ESI/PF made before due date of filing of return of income is allowab…

Dana India Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 473/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.473/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…Act. The DRP, did not provide any reprieve to the assessee. 18.2. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The issue is no more res integra. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Limited (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) has held that the amendment to first proviso and omission of the second proviso to section 43B by the Finance Act, 2003, is retrospective. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Aimil Limited (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) has allowed deduction in respect of employees’ share when the amount was paid before the due date. When we co…

DCIT Corporate Circle 1 (1), Chennai vs. M/S Agnice Fire Protection Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 1107/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1107/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Agnice Fire Protection Limited, Income Tax, Vs. No. 2, G.K. Industrial Estate, I Main Corporate Circle 1(1), Road, Alapakkam, Porur Post, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 116. [Pan: Aaaca9432F] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Suresh Periasamy, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai Dated 29.12.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Made Towards Non-Payment Of Employees Contribution Of Epf & Esi To The Tune Of ₹.61.71 Lakhs, Which Was Disallowed Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Periasamy, JCITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Shishir Kumar Das, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Amravathi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 38/HYD/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Feb 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2018-19 Shishir Kumar Das, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Hyderabad – 500 029. Income Tax, Pan: Aitpd 6386 K Circle-10(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar Revenue By: Shri Pavithran Kumar Date Of Hearing: 19/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 02/02/2021 Order Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.:

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Shri Pavithran Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…r, observed that though there are some decisions in favour of the assessee, there were decisions in favour of the Revenue as well. He further observed that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd reported in (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) was in the context of section 43B of the Act and the employer’s contribution to Provident Fund and ESI. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Unifac Management Services (India) (P.) Ltd vs. DCIT reported in [2018] 409 ITR 225 (Madras) to hold the issue against the assessee and he accordingly…

Surendra Kumar Mathur, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Jodhpur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 426/JODH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalsurendra Kumar Mathur, Vs. I.T.O., Kuldip Vihar, Pal Road, Ward 3(1) Jodhpur. Jodhpur. Pan No. Akbpm 1606 K Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari Ca & Shri Abhinav Kothari Ca Revenue By Shri K.C. Badhok, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 06.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2021 O R D E R Per Bench : This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jodhpur Dated 16/07/2018 For The A.Y. 2012-13, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Partly Not Allowing Deduction For Cost Of Improvement Incurred In Fy 1991-92 At 2,12,500/- Out Of Total Claim Of Rs. 8,50,000/-. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Further Erred In Partly Not Allowing Deduction For Cost Of Improvement Incurred In Fy 2001-02 At 1,06,250/- Out Of Total Claim Of Rs. 4,25,000/-. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs. 3,35,554/- On Account Of Fair Market Value U/S 50C Of The Act. The Declared Sale Consideration Deserved To Be Taken For Computing Long Term Gain.

Section 50C

…therefore the declared valuations deserve to be accepted. Such clarificatory amendments needs to be applied retrospectively as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Allied Motors P. Ltd. reported in 224 ITR 677 (SC) and CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306 (SC). In view of above legal position and the facts of the case, the sale consideration be 5 ITA 426 /Jodh/2018 Surendra Kumar Mathur Vs ITO adopted at Rs. 61,00,000/- as against Rs. 63,35,554/- adopted for assessing the long term capital gains. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8. Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the Inco…

Navigators Logistics Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-17(2), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5973/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Navigators Logistics Ltd, Vs. Acit, D-123, 3Rd Floor, Saket, New Circle-17(2), Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaccn0168R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Aman Preet, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(X)Section 36Section 43B

…in the year in which the payment is made or if paid before the due date of filing of the return in the assessment year two it belongs to. The assessee contested that in view of the decision of the CIT Vs. Vinay Cements 213 CTR 268 and CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions 319 ITR 306. Thus the contention of the assessee the about disallowance cannot be made. The ld AO rejected the contention of the assessee and stated that due date means the date for deposit of the above contribution is the dates mentioned in the respective PF and State Insurance Act. Undisputedly, the assessee did not deposit the amount before the dates pres…

Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 830/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.830/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr.I.Dinesh, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस. जयरामन, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.830/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s.Tamil Nadu Cements Corp. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.735, LLA Building, Corporate Ward-3(1), Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai-600 005. [PAN: AABCT 1819 J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.I.Dinesh, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Mr.Abani Kanta N…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. State Bank of Mysore

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal

ITA/355/2013HC Karnataka15 Oct 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 260Section 260ASection 263Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(1)

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.355 OF 2013 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX LTU, JSS TOWERS BSK III STAGE, BANGALORE. 2. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX LTU, JSS TOWERS 100 FEET RING ROAD BSK III STAGE, BANGALORE-560085. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S. STATE BANK OF MYSORE HEAD OFFICE, P.B. NO.9727 K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560254. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ANK…

Freight Systems India Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Cirlce -2 (1), Chennai

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

ITA 106/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2020AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.106/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Freight Systems (India) Private The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Super A-7, Rathna Tower 1, 1St Vs. Income Tax, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Floor, Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Room No. 511, Wanaparthy Block, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. No. 121, M.G. Road, Nungambakkam, [Pan: Aaacf0677K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Chennai Dated 27.09.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made In Respect Of Remittance Of Employee’S Contribution Made To Pf/Esi.

For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…sue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Industrial Security & Intelligence India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) besides relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusions (SC) 319 ITR 306. We have perused the above decisions. In the case of CIT v. Industrial Security & Intelligence India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has observed and held as under: “2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The respondent/assessee filed its return of income for the assessment years in question. The said returns were…