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.

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1150/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

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…

Shardlow India Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 250/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.250/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Shardlow India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Huzur Gardens, Madhavaram High Vs. Income Tax, Road, Perambur, Chennai – 600 011. Corporate Circle – 6(1), Chennai. [Pan: Aaacs 5048P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri J. Pavitran Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.10.2019 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)-16, Chennai Dated 28.11.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 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 Employees Contribution Towards Epf/Esi.

For Respondent: Shri J. Pavitran Kumar, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ment, thereby dismissed the appeals. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred further appeals before the Tribunal. 4 I.T.A. No.250/Chny/19 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: “5. Heard both sides. Perused orders of lower authorities and the…

Softsmith Infotech Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward6(3), Chennai

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

ITA 249/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.248 & 249/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Softsmith Infotech Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, 766, Sakthi Towers, Tower-Ii, Vs. Ward – 6(3), 5Th Floor, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aaecs 9238H] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Pavitran Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.10.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai Both Dated 30.11.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised In The Appeals Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made In Respect Of Employees Contribution Towards Epf/Esi.

For Appellant: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pavitran Kumar, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…9 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 th…

Softsmith Infotech Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward6(3), Chennai

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

ITA 248/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.248 & 249/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Softsmith Infotech Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, 766, Sakthi Towers, Tower-Ii, Vs. Ward – 6(3), 5Th Floor, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aaecs 9238H] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Pavitran Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.10.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai Both Dated 30.11.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised In The Appeals Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made In Respect Of Employees Contribution Towards Epf/Esi.

For Appellant: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pavitran Kumar, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…9 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 th…

R.J.Trade Wings Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT- Circle- 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5770/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S R.J. Trade Wings Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Ltd. 18/20, Dubash Marg, Vs. Tax, Circle-2(3)(2), Aayakar Kala Ghoda, Fort, Mumbai- Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai- 400020. 400020. Pan No. Aabcr1467J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Aniket Shet, ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak, DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(2)Section 43B

…find that in Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that both employee’s and employer’s contributions are covered under amendment to section 43B and the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC). M/s R.J. Trade Wings 3 Following the above decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, we delete the disallowance of Rs.2,31,328/- made by the AO and allow the 1st ground of appeal. 6. The 2nd ground raised by the assessee in this appeal is against the order of the CIT(A) in not adjudicating the disallowance of bad debts amounting to Rs.9,7…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Emmar Logistics Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 463/VIZ/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri C. Kameswara Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…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. (Emmar Logistics Pvt. Ltd.) 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…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Emmar Logistics Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 462/VIZ/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri C. Kameswara Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…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. (Emmar Logistics Pvt. Ltd.) 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…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Bharat Heavy Plate & Vessel Limitted, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 457/VIZ/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.457/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2012-13) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Bharat Heavy Plate & Circle 1(1) Vessels Ltd. Visakhapatnam D.No.10-3, Administrative Building Natayyapalem Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aaacb7076N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Smt.Suman Malik, Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : None सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Malik, DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…408. The Ld.CIT(A) also relied on the following decisions : (i) CIT Vs. Kichha Sugar Company Ltd. (2013) 356 ITR 0351 (Uttarakhand) 3 I.T.A. No.457/Viz/2019, A.Y.2012-13 M/s Bharat Heavy Plate & Vessels Ltd., Visakhapatnam (ii) CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (319 ITR 306)-227 CTR (SC) 417 (2009) (iii) SC in CIT Vs. Vinay Cement Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR (ST.)1 (iv) CIT Vs. Vijay Shree Ltd. 43 Taxman 396 (Calcutta hc) (v) CIT Vs. Nexus Computers Pvt. Ltd. 313 ITR 144 4. Against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the department has filed appeal before this Tribunal. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material pl…

ACIT, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam vs. G. Uma Sai Prasad, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 509/VIZ/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Circle-4(1), Vs. Guntubolu Uma Sai Prasad, Visakhapatnam D.No. 49-54/16/4/1/13, Kalyan Residence, B.S. Layout, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aapcs 7844 G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C. Kameswara Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…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…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Sri Krishna Engineering & Constructions Company, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 474/VIZ/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Circle-3(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Krishna Engineering Visakhapatnam. & Construction Co., Flat No. 9, Kalyani, Sector-2, Mvp Colony, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aapfs 8945 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…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…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Nem Engineering Projects Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 458/VIZ/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Circle-3(1), Vs. M/S. Nem Engineering Visakhapatnam. Projects Private Ltd., D.No. 55-15-6, Housing Board Colony, Krishna College Road, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaccn 6245 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – 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…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Dasari Kasi Viswanadham, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 412/VIZ/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Circle-5(1), Vs. Dasari Kasiviswanadham, Visakhapatnam. Prop. United Surgicals, Sagar Nagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Afbpd 9254 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…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…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Yona Smelters Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 411/VIZ/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Circle-5(1), Vs. M/S. Yona Smelters Pvt. Visakhapatnam. Ltd., D.No. 49-36-20, Flat No.B1, Nikhils Residency, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaacy 3608 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

…ection 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. (M/s. Yona Smelters Pvt. Ltd.) 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…

Clayfin Technologies Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 3(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1072/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 435

…Pvt. Ltd., in Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.585 & 586 of 2015 dated 24.07.2015, wherein, Para Nos.5 & 6 as held as under: “……5. We find that the Tribunal has rightly relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of. CIT V. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 306, whereby, the Supreme Court held that omission of second proviso to Section 435 and amendment to first proviso by Finance Act, 2003 are curative in nature and are effective retrospectively, i.e., with effect from 1.4.1988 i.e., the date of insertion of first proviso. The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V. Amil Ltd. reported in 321 ITR 508 hel…

Clayfin Technologies Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 3(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1071/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 435

…Pvt. Ltd., in Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.585 & 586 of 2015 dated 24.07.2015, wherein, Para Nos.5 & 6 as held as under: “……5. We find that the Tribunal has rightly relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of. CIT V. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 306, whereby, the Supreme Court held that omission of second proviso to Section 435 and amendment to first proviso by Finance Act, 2003 are curative in nature and are effective retrospectively, i.e., with effect from 1.4.1988 i.e., the date of insertion of first proviso. The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V. Amil Ltd. reported in 321 ITR 508 hel…

ITO, Ward-3(2), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. R.K. Infra & Engineering (India) Pvt.Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1227/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Nilanjan DeyFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Kumar
Section 40

…to be declaratory and curative in nature and therefore, should be given retrospective effect from 1st April, 2005, being the date from which sub-clause (ia) of section 40(a) was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004. In CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306/185 Taxman 416 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had to deal with the question, whether omission (deletion) of the second proviso to s. 43B of the IT Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2003, operated w.e.f. 1st April, 2004, or whether it operated retrospectively w.e.f. 1st April, 1988? Prior to Finance Act, 2003, the second proviso to s. 43B of the IT…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. Bhima S.S.K. Ltd., Solapur

In the result, the appeals of assessees and the Department are partly allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

ITA 847/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Sl.

…SSK Group Cases towards Provident Fund but such amount was deposited before due date of filing return of income. This issue has been settled by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported as 319 ITR 306. 23.1 The assessee‟s eligibility to claim deduction on delayed deposit of employees share in Provident Fund scheme but before due date of filing return of income is no more res integra. The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. reported as 368 ITR 749 following the ratio laid down in…

Majalgaon S.S.K. Ltd., Beed vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeals of assessees and the Department are partly allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

ITA 830/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Sl.

…SSK Group Cases towards Provident Fund but such amount was deposited before due date of filing return of income. This issue has been settled by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported as 319 ITR 306. 23.1 The assessee‟s eligibility to claim deduction on delayed deposit of employees share in Provident Fund scheme but before due date of filing return of income is no more res integra. The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. reported as 368 ITR 749 following the ratio laid down in…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shri Vitthal S.S.K. Ltd., Solapur

In the result, the appeals of assessees and the Department are partly allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

ITA 824/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Sl.

…SSK Group Cases towards Provident Fund but such amount was deposited before due date of filing return of income. This issue has been settled by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported as 319 ITR 306. 23.1 The assessee‟s eligibility to claim deduction on delayed deposit of employees share in Provident Fund scheme but before due date of filing return of income is no more res integra. The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. reported as 368 ITR 749 following the ratio laid down in…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shree Pandurang S.S.K. Ltd., Solapur

In the result, the appeals of assessees and the Department are partly allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

ITA 823/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Sl.

…SSK Group Cases towards Provident Fund but such amount was deposited before due date of filing return of income. This issue has been settled by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported as 319 ITR 306. 23.1 The assessee‟s eligibility to claim deduction on delayed deposit of employees share in Provident Fund scheme but before due date of filing return of income is no more res integra. The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. reported as 368 ITR 749 following the ratio laid down in…