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, Corp Cir-2(1), Chennai vs. Florind Uppers Pvt Ltd, Chennai

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

ITA 118/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.118/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14

For Appellant: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: None
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 3Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…of the assessee. The relevant portion of the order of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court is reproduced 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 43B 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…

M/S Mcml Systems Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is allowed

ITA 454/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…it is held thus: Date of Judgment 11-07-2018 I.T.A.No.228/2013 Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s. M PACT Technology Services Pvt. Ltd. "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 Mcml Systems Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is allowed

ITA 453/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…it is held thus: Date of Judgment 11-07-2018 I.T.A.No.228/2013 Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s. M PACT Technology Services Pvt. Ltd. "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 Mcml Systems Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is allowed

ITA 452/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…it is held thus: Date of Judgment 11-07-2018 I.T.A.No.228/2013 Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s. M PACT Technology Services Pvt. Ltd. "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…

DCIT Company Circle IV(4), Chwennai vs. Sharp Detectives P Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 193/CHNY/1999[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Aug 2019AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.193/Mds/1999 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 1995-96

For Appellant: Shri V.M. Mahidar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri J. Prabhakar, CA

…filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court by judgment in T.C.A. No.2416 of 2008 dated 25.02.2019, remitted back the matter for deciding the appeal afresh in accordance with law pronounced by the Apex Court in CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306. Therefore, the appeal 2 I.T.A. No.193/Mds/99 was posted as per the statement of the High Court, for fresh hearing. 2. Shri V.M. Mahidar, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the Assessing Officer made disallowance of ₹11,85,777/- and ₹4,65,817/- towards the payments made by the assessee to PF and ESI respectively. On appeal by…

Astoria Agro & Allied Industries Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 12(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed

ITA 2136/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2136/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) Astoria Agro & Allied Dcit-Circle 12(1)(1) Industries Private Limited Room No.223, Aaykar Bhavan, बनाम/ Gate No.187, A/P Katfal M.K. Road Vs. Baramati Mumbai-400 020. Pune-413 102. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaica-4511-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Appellant By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji- Ld. Ar Respondent By : Ms. R. Kavitha - Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 01/08/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 09.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year [In Short Referred To As ‘Ay’] 2014-15 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-20/Dcit-12(1)(1)/11-10645/16-17 Dated 08/11/2017 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: -

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. R. Kavitha - Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…delay in deposit of Provident Fund contribution for Rs.70,152/- and therefore, the same was added to the income of the assessee u/s 43B. Before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT V/s Alom Extrusions Ltd. [319 ITR 306] to submit that since the payment were made before due date of filing of return of income, the deduction of the same would be allowable to the assessee. However, Ld. first appellate authority, observing that the assessee failed to establish that contributions were deposited before due date of filing of return, confirmed the stand of Ld. AO. The L…

Chipco Bonding Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 2777/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri C.N. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Karnani, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

…h month. 4. The Commissioner Appeals has wrongly given the dates of payments in respect of Employees State Insurance Contribution. 5. The Commissioner Appeals ought to have followed the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case CITV. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD (SC) 319 ITR 306 (SC) and allowed the claim of deduction of Provident Fund and Employees State insurance received from Employees under section 43 B since the second proviso to section 43 B as amended by Finance Act 2003 is curative in nature as the Payment being made before due date of Furnishing the return of income under section 139 (1) of the Act. 6. The appel…

DCIT Cir 6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ion Exchange India Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1759/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri P.R.V. Raghavan- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh K Das –Ld. DR

…statutory dues viz. Employees Contribution towards ESIC and PPF aggregating to Rs.0.38 Lacs. The Ld. AO disallowed the same u/s 36(1)(va). The Ld. first appellate directed Ld. AO to follow the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT V/s Alom Extrusions Ltd. [319 ITR 306]. Since Ld. first appellate authority has directed Ld. AO to follow the binding judicial precedent in the shape of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, no infirmity could be found in the same. Ground No.9 of revenue’s appeal stands dismissed. 4.5 Ground No. 1 of assessee’s appeal has not been pressed before us by Ld. AR. Ground No. 3 of assessee’s…

Ion Exchange (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 6(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1688/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri P.R.V. Raghavan- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh K Das –Ld. DR

…statutory dues viz. Employees Contribution towards ESIC and PPF aggregating to Rs.0.38 Lacs. The Ld. AO disallowed the same u/s 36(1)(va). The Ld. first appellate directed Ld. AO to follow the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT V/s Alom Extrusions Ltd. [319 ITR 306]. Since Ld. first appellate authority has directed Ld. AO to follow the binding judicial precedent in the shape of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, no infirmity could be found in the same. Ground No.9 of revenue’s appeal stands dismissed. 4.5 Ground No. 1 of assessee’s appeal has not been pressed before us by Ld. AR. Ground No. 3 of assessee’s…

DCIT, Corp Cir-1(2), Chennai vs. Best & Crompton Engg Ltd, Chennai

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

ITA 3179/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3179 /Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Best & Crompton Engg. Limited, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(2), Vs. No. 28, Sidco Industrial Estate, Chennai 600 034. Ambattur, Chennai 600 058. [Pan:Aaacb2753N] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. Cit अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.07.2019 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) 1, Chennai Dated 30.07.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Only Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Made In Respect Of Employees Contribution Towards Pf/Esi.

For Respondent: None
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 4 I.T.A. No.3179/M/18 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 lo…

Eagle Trans Shipping & Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 324/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Senior DR
Section 139Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)

…ction 2(24)(x) and also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Pr. CIT-7 vs. Planman HR Pvt. Ltd. – 2017 (9) TMI 1688 – Delhi High Court and the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. M/s. Alom Extrusions Ltd. – (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC). 7. However, on the other hand, in order to repel the arguments addressed by the ld. AR for the assessee, ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in case of CIT-II vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation in Tax Appeal No.637 of 2013 & ors. order dated 26.12.2013 and contended that th…

Metal Extrusion India Ltd, Jaipur vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 163/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Raovk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No.163/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2015-16 Cuke M/S. Metal Extrusion India Ltd. The Addl. Cit Vs. 36A, Suraj Nagar East, Civil Lines Circle – 1 Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aafcm 3410 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, JCIT-DR
Section 143Section 50CSection 60C

…effective from the date on which the related legal provisions were introduced. As I say so, in addition to the reasoning given earlier in this order, I may also refer to the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusion Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306/185 Taxman 416, to the following effect: "Once this uniformity is brought about in the first proviso, then, in our view, the Finance Act, 2003, which is made applicable by the Parliament only w.e.f. 1st April, 2004, would become curative in nature, hence, it would apply retrospectively w.e.f. 1st April, 1988 (i.e. the date on which the related le…

Arinana David Raju, Visakhapatnam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 285/VIZ/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blearinana David Raju, Vs. Acit, Circle-4(1), D.No. 43-14-17, Visakhapatnam. Subbalakshmi Nagar, Dondaparthy, Visakhapatnam Pan No. Aedpa 1853 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.Srinivasa Murthy, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)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 Parbhani District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 2499/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण] पुणे "यायपीठ “बी” पुणे म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2499/PUN/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Parbhani Dist. Central Co-operative ………. अपीलाथ" / Bank Ltd., Appellant Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Parbhani – 431401. PAN : AAAAT6996R. बनाम v/s The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, ………. ""यथ" / Jalna Circle, Jalna. Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2567/PUN/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, ………. अपीलाथ" / Jalna Circle, Ja…

DCIT 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Freudenberg Performance Materials India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3894/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha () Dy.Cit 15(1)(1), Mumbai Vs M/S Freudenberg Performance Materials India Ltd, 200, Sai Sampanna Bldg Station Road, Vikhroli (W) Mumbai-400 083 Pan : Aaacf1787G Appellant Respondednt M/S. Freudenberg Vs Dy.Cit 15(1)(1), Mumbai Performance Materials India Ltd, 200, Sai Sampanna Bldg Station Road, Vikhroli (W) Mumbai-400 083

…43B is not applicable to payments made beyond the due date specified under respective Acts, if such payments have been made on or before due date of filing return of income. We further noted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd 319 ITR 306 (SC) had considered an identical issue and held that contribution payable by the employer to the PF or any other fund for the welfare of the employees was allowable, if such contribution is paid on or before the due date of filing return of income. In this case, the Ld.CIT(A) has brought out clear facts to the effect that although the assessee ha…

DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Airplaza Retail Holdings Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15 are dismissed

ITA 1269/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Mr.Sarat Chnadran,AdvocateFor Respondent: 09.07.2019
Section 260ASection 32(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद य एवं "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद य के सम( BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1268 & 1269/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, M/s. Airplaza Retail Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Circle – 1(1), Chennai – 600 034 4, Mookambika Complex 5th Floor, Lady Desika Road, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. PAN: AAICA7614B (अपीलाथ*/Appellant) (+,यथ*/Respondent) : Mrs.M.Sub…

DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Airplaza Retail Holdings Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15 are dismissed

ITA 1268/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Mr.Sarat Chnadran,AdvocateFor Respondent: 09.07.2019
Section 260ASection 32(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद य एवं "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद य के सम( BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1268 & 1269/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, M/s. Airplaza Retail Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Circle – 1(1), Chennai – 600 034 4, Mookambika Complex 5th Floor, Lady Desika Road, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. PAN: AAICA7614B (अपीलाथ*/Appellant) (+,यथ*/Respondent) : Mrs.M.Sub…

Tecnotree Convergence Lt D, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 1520/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 10A(3)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 155Section 40Section 94(7)

…it is held thus: Date of Judgment 11-07-2018 I.T.A.No.228/2013 Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s. M PACT Technology Services Pvt. Ltd. "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…

Tecnotree Convergence Lt D, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 1519/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 10A(3)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 155Section 40Section 94(7)

…it is held thus: Date of Judgment 11-07-2018 I.T.A.No.228/2013 Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s. M PACT Technology Services Pvt. Ltd. "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…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Tecnotree Convergence Ltd, Gurgaon

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 1448/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 10A(3)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 155Section 40Section 94(7)

…it is held thus: Date of Judgment 11-07-2018 I.T.A.No.228/2013 Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s. M PACT Technology Services Pvt. Ltd. "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…