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.

M/S. Sheela Foam Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5417/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, V.P & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh.H.K.Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 36(1)Section 43B

…ssment Year 2013-14 7. We find that the present issue raised in the appeal against disallowance made u/s 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs Alom Extrusions [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC). Following the same parity of reasoning, we hold that where the assessee has deposited the said amount on account of employee’s contribution to Provident Fund and Employee State Insurance before the due date of filing of return of income, then, the assessee cannot be held to be in default. The Assessing Officer may verify this particular a…

DCIT Cir 15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tiger Steel Engineering India Private Limited, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1192/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon’Bledcit Circle 15(3)(1) V. M/S. Tiger Steel Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Bldg. No. 5, Sector – 3 R.No. 451, 4Th Floor Millennium Business Park, Mahape Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Navi Mumbai – 400 710 Mumbai – 400 020

For Appellant: Shri Anand KolageFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh

Section 36(1)(va)

…on account of employees contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC, which was paid beyond the date prescribed in the relevant Act, 2 M/s. Tiger Steel Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., relying on The decision of the Hon. Apex Court in the case of Alom Extrusion Ltd. 1319 ITR 306) which is not relevant to Section 36(1)(va) of the Act." 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 64.64.964/- on account of employees contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC, which was paid beyond the date prescribed in the relevant Act, thereby ignoring the CBDT Ci…

Shri Jaikishan Parchani, Indore vs. The ITO-5(5), Indore

Appeal are allowed for

ITA 673/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Mar 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(ii)Section 56(2)(vii)

…[ITA No.673/Ind/2019] [Shri Jaykishan Parchani, Indore] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE SMC BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Jaykishan Parchani ITO-5(5) S/o Shri Arjun Parchani, 123, Indore बनाम/ B.K. Sindhi Colony, Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.AIHPP0129L Appellant by Shri Rajesh Mehta, CA Respondent by Shri R.P. Mourya, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 03.03.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 06.03.2020 आदेश / O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of the CIT(A)-I, Indore dated 06.03.2019 pertaining to the assessment year 2…

DCIT, Circle-4(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 341/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddcit,Cir 4(2)(2), M/S Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. Room No. 640, 6Th Floor, 401-403, 4Th Floor, V Times Square, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Cbd Belapur, Sector-15, Mumbai – 400 020 Navi Mumbai – 400614 Pan – Aaach2663P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. Bhoopati, D.R Respondent By: Ms. Neha Paranjpe, A.R Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.03.2020

For Appellant: Shri R. Bhoopati, D.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Paranjpe, A.R

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

…ployee's Welfare Funds on the other. 8. The section referred to above viz. section 43B and the amendments thereto came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Alom Extrusions Ltd., reported in (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) when the Supreme Court inter alia held that DCIT, Circle-4(2)(2) Vs. M/s Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. 4 ITA No.341/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 the amendments to the said section brought about by the Finance Act, 2003 with effect from 1st April 2004 were retrospective in nature and would vrd 7 ITXA399/12 operate from 1st April 1988. The ITAT,…

Manoj Mittal, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4596/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. C.S.Anand, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR

Section 2(22)(e)Section 50Section 50CSection 69

…of Judgement in the case of Sita Bai Khetan Vs. ITO 50 ITR (Trib) 196 ITATJaipur 17. Copy of Judgement in the case of John Fowler (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT I.T.A No. 7545/MUM/2014 ITAT Mumbai 18. Copy of Judgement in the case of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306(SC) Supreme Court of India 19. Copy of Judgement in the case of Dharamhibhai Sonani Vs. ACIT I.T.A No. 1237/Ahd/2013 ITAT Ahmedabad 20. Copy of Judgement in the case of Jitendra R. Patel Vs. DCIT ITA no. 1932/Ahd/2013 ITAT Ahmedabad 21. Copy of judgement in the case of CIT Vs. Ansal land Mark Township P. Ltd. 377 ITR 635 (Del) Delhi High Court 2…

Servion Global Solutions Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1974/CHNY/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2020AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 194JSection 195Section 36(1)(va)Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…2015. :-5-: Wherein, the assessee had remitted the employee contribution beyond the due date for payment but within the due date for filing the return of income. The Jurisdictional High Court following the decision of CIT vs Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 306 (SC) and Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs Amil Ltd. reported in 321 ITR 508 upheld the tribunal decision that payment of PF and ESI made beyond the grace period/due date allowed under PF & ESI Act but before the due date of filing the income tax return cannot be disallowed u/s. 43 of the Act. Further, the Ld. AR also relied on t…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Buzzworks Business Services Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 3227/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3227/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Buzzworks Business Services Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(2), Vs. Pvt. Ltd., No. 730, New No. 212, Pla Rathna Towers, 3Rd Floor, Chennai 600 034. Anna Salai, Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Aaccb8364P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri A. Sundararajan, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri A. Sundararajan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate

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. Amil 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: 4 I.T.A. No.3227/M/18 “5. Heard both sides. Perused orders of l…

Excel Academy of Security Training Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1797/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Bleexcel Academy Of Security Vs. Ito, Ward-17(2), Training Private Limited, Hyderabad. 6-3-652, A/3, 1St Floor Kautilya, Amrutha Estates, Nims Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. Pan No. Aabce 2896 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri ASRSS Siva Prasad–ARFor Respondent: Shri AC Rout – Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

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

I.T.O. Ward -3(4), Nagpur vs. M/S Deepak Construction, Nagpur

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

ITA 187/NAG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.187/Nag/2015 ननिाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Nagpur. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Deepak Construction New Bhanegaon, Khaparkheda, Saoner, Nagpur- 441102. Pan: Aadfd4092L ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri U.U. Kesar

Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

…overned by section 36(1)(va) and not section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2(a). On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Alom Extrusions Ltd (319 ITR 306) (2009) dealt with the second proviso to section 43B and not with the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. 2(b) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) also failed to take cognizance of the ITAT (Mumbai's ) later ruling in the case of ITO vs LKP Securities (ITA No.638/Mum/2012) wherein it has been he…

Saravana Stores (Tex), Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 151/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 151/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Saravana Stores(Tex), 42-45,Ranganathan Street, Income Tax, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Central Circle 1(2), [Pan: Aawfs6761Q] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By Ms. T. Sandhyaarti, Ca ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Guru Bashyam, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2019

For Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…under Provident Fund & ESI Acts but before due date for filing of income-tax return. This issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by various High Courts following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (319 ITR 306), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that omission of second proviso to section 43B and amendment of first proviso by Finance Act, 2003 are curative in nature and are effective retrospectively and thus with effect from 1.4.1988 i.e. :- 5 -: the date of insertion of first proviso. The co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal considering a similar i…

Raychem Rpg P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4329/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodraychem Rpg Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Addl.Cit, Range-7(2) Rpg House, 463 Aaykar Bhawan Dr. Annie Besant Road, M.K.Road Worli,Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacr8032L (Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 145Section 145ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…vision of section 36(1)(va), rws 43B, but the Hon’ble Gujarat High court, in the case of CIT vs Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation 41 taxmann.com 100, after considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT vs M/s.Alom Extrusions Ltd 319 ITR 306 held that the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not applicable to the employees contribution to 4 Raychem RPG Pvt.Ltd. PF. Accordingly, rejected the claim of the assesee. Aggrieved by the Ld.CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground No.1 of assessee appeal…

ACIT Circle-3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 4077/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 44

…to employees’ contribution in the case of the assessee-company. 21. Upon hearing both the counsel and perusing the records, we find that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Alto Extrusion Ltd. (319 ITR 306), decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (368 ITR 749) and Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. (366 ITR 1). Since learned CIT(A) has followed above said decisions, we do not find any infirmity in the order of learned CIT(A). Accordingly, we uphold the same. 22. Another common ground raised in all…

Ecgc Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT - Circle-3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3569/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 44

Selva Gold Covering Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed

ITA 693/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms.R.Anitha, JCITFor Respondent: 11.11.2019

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

…yees contributions to P.F. and E.S.I, before the due date for filing the Return of Income under Section 139(1). 8. The learned C.l.T.(Appeals) is not justified in taking a stand that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of C.l.T. Vs Alom Extrusions (319 ITR 306) does not deal with Employees contribution which are covered under Sec. 36 (1)( a) but only deals with the retrospective amendment of Section 43B and hence the decision of the Supreme Court cannot be applied in case of P.F. and E.S.I. Employees contributions that are remitted beyond the due date specified in the respective statute. 9. On the oth…

Autoline Industries Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 970/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos. 970 & 2983/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Autoline Industries Limited. S. No.313-314 & 320-323, Nanewarwadi, Chakan, Pune-410501. Pan : Aabca4534D .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Sharad Shah &For Respondent: Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, CIT

Section 115JSection 14Section 14A

…ced reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gatge Patil Transporters ( ITA No.1002 & 1034 of 2012), 368 ITR 749 wherein relying upon the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306 holding that the amendment of Section 43B by the Finance Act, 2003 is retrospective in nature and it was held that delayed payments of employee‟s contribution to PF cannot be disallowed if the same have been paid prior to due date of filing the return of income. 24. Per contra, the Ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the orders of the Sub-ordin…

Autoline Industries Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2983/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sharad Shah &For Respondent: Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, CIT

Section 115JSection 14Section 14A

M/S M.P.Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Ltd, Bhopal vs. Pr CIT-1, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 273/IND/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2019

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. M.P. Rajya Van Vikas Pr. Cit-1 Nigam Ltd. Bhopal बनाम/ 5Th Floor, Panchanan Building Vs. T.T. Nagar Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaccm0331R

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ontribution. It is stated by the assessee that all the amounts have been paid in EPF account before the due date of filing and filing of return of income. It is submitted that the said expenditure is allowable in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme 319 ITR 306, judgement of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur 363 ITR 70 and also judgement of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam 363 ITR 307 it is contended that the special leave petitions filed by the revenue against these judgements have been…

Garware Synthetics Ltd., Thane vs. ACIT - 15(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6139/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 68

…n the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on this ground by holding that the decision cited by the Ld. A.R. were rendered after considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306 (SC) and the facts in Apex Court decision were distinguished by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. GP Road Transport Corporation Ltd. in ITA No.637 of 2013, 366 ITR 170 (Guj). 10. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, we observe that in this case the assessee has remitted the dues on account of PF and…

Aramex India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 9(1)(2)

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1978/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Aramex India Pvt. Ltd, Deputy Commissioner Of Income 821, Solitaire Corporate Vs. Tax -9(1)(2), Room No. 260A, 2Nd Park Andheir Ghatkopar Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Chakala Andheeri (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400093. Pan No. Aacca6756A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishant Thakkar & Hiten Chande, Ars Revenue By : Mr. Anand Mohan, Cit-Dr & C.A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/08/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/11/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Nishant Thakkar & Hiten Chande, ARsFor Respondent: Mr. Anand Mohan, CIT-DR & C.A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Aramex India Pvt. Ltd, Deputy Commissioner of Income 821, Solitaire Corporate Vs. Tax -9(1)(2), Room No. 260A, 2nd Park Andheir Ghatkopar RD Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Chakala Andheeri (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400093. PAN No. AACCA6756A Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Nishant Thakkar & Hiten Chande, ARs Revenue by : Mr. Anand Mohan, CIT-DR & C.A.K. Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 16/08/2019 Date of pronouncement : 08/11/2019…

DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Gujarat Nre Coke Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1151/KOL/2017[F.Y-2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2019

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy& Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

…Hence, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the ground of the Revenue. 31. Employees’ contribution towards PF: We find that the ld. CIT(A) has followed the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2010] 319 ITR 306 (SC) and judgement of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of ACIT vs. M/s. Vijay Shree Ltd. [Calcutta High Court, ITA No. 245 of 2011] and the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT, Central II vs. M/s. R.E.I. Agro Ltd. [GA No. 3022of 2013] and deleted the disallowance. We find no infirmity in the same. 32. Computation o…