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.

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 1447/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…

Frigorifico Allana Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1)(4), Mumbai

ITA 925/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri N. K. Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri Apurva R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)

…ance Act 2003, put on par the benefit of deductions of tax, duty, cess and fee on the one hand with contributions to various employees welfare funds on the other and had also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusion Ltd (319 ITR 306). 23. Moreover no new facts or contrary judgments have been brought on record before us in order to controvert or rebut the 21 I.T.A. No. 925 & 1860/Mum/2018 M/s Frigorifico Allana Pvt. Ltd. findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we see no reasons to interfere into or deviate from the findings recorded by the Ld.CIT(A). Hence, we are of…

DCIT -CC7(3), Mumbai vs. Kisan Moulding Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3123/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dcit, Cent.Cir.7(3), Mumbai Vs M/S Kisan Moulding Ltd K-Wing, 3Rd Floor, Tax Centre, 26A, Chandivali Road, Andheri(E), Mkumbai- 72 Pan :Aacck0640D Appellant Respondednt

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

…and in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd. 368 ITR 749 (Bom) held that both the employee's and employer's contribution are covered under amendment to section 43B and the judgement of Supreme court in the case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC). The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Organics & Chemical Ltd. (supra) held as under : "6. On a plain reading of the above provisos, it became ex-fade clear that the Assessees -employers were entitled to deductions only if the contributions to any fund for the welfare of the employees stood credited on or before the due dat…

ITO 15(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Credit Suisse Business Analytics (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3306/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhito-15(1)(3) M/S Credit Suisse Business Room No. 15B, Gr. Floor, Analytics (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 3Rd & 4Th Floor, City Park, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400020 Central Avenue, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai-400076. Pan: Aadcc5878L Appellant Respondent : Sh. Love Kumar Sr Dr Appellant By Shri Manish Kumar Singh (Sr.Dr) Respondent By : Shri Anish Thacker (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 21.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.06.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Respondent: Sh. Love Kumar Sr DR

Section 10ASection 254(1)Section 40

…ics (India) Pvt. Ltd. profits eligible for deduction on the ground that these receipts were not generated out of the manufacturing activity of the assessee-company. 12. By reason of the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. 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…

Ass CIT 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Raman and Weil P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 1953/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.1953 To 1955/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) Acit-1(3)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Raman & Weil Pvt. Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Ltd. Vs. 15, Chetau Marine, B-Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Churchgate, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr5065M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri R. Sindhu Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwalla/Nishant Thakkur/Jasmin Amalsadvala सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/06/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09. Ita. No.1953/M/2017 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeals Against The Order Dated 26.12.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla/NishantFor Respondent: Shri R. Sindhu

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 801B(4)

…n by relying upon High Court decision in the case CIT (Cent.) Rune, Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd., when the said decision itself is erroneous as in the said case , it has been wrongly interpreted that the Apex Courts decision in the case of Alom Extrusions 319 ITR 306 relates to employees contribution , when in fact , it is related to employers contribution governed by Section 43B ?" 5. "Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in law and on facts in restricting the disallowance of Rs.5,64,418/- made u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D to 10% of exempt income i.e. Rs.1,07,377/-, holding that Rule 8D was not applicable for AY.2007…

Phoenix Comtrade Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 4(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 383/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri G Manjunatha () Phoenix Comtrade Pvt Ltd Vs Acit-4(3)(1), Mumbai Office No.403, Swapna Siddhi, Akurli Road, Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400 101 Pan : Aadcp7954N Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 92C

…cified under the Act, but such remittance has been made on or before the due date of filing the return of income, therefore, the same is required to be allowed u/s 43B. In this regard, the assessee has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC) in the case of CIT vs Alstorm Extrusions Ltd and the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Ghatge Patil Transport 368 ITR 793 (Bom) where it was held that employees contribution to PF, even if made beyond the due date prescribed under the relevant Act is liable for deduction u/s 43B of the I.T. Act, 1961, if the same…

Amul Research & Development Association, Anand vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Anand

ITA 3295/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 48Section 50C

…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 Amul Research & Development Association Vs. ITO Assessment year: 2011-12 Page 7 of 10 w.e.f. 1st April, 2004, would become curative in nature, hence, it…

Shri Bhaveshbhai O. Lakhani, Bhavnagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 1196/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Us. Bhaveshbhai O Lakhani Vs. Ito Assessment Year: 2012-13 Page 2 Of 9

Section 143(3)Section 48Section 50CSection 50C(1)

…introduced. As I say so, in addition to the reasoning given Bhaveshbhai O Lakhani Vs. ITO Assessment year: 2012-13 Page 6 of 9 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…

Firmenich Aromatics (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 9(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6081/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha () & Shri Ravish Sood () Firmenich Aromatics (India) Vs Acit-9(3)(1), Mumbai Pvt Ltd, 9Th Floor, Arena Space, Cts 20, New Shyam Nagar Road, Behind Majas Bus Depot, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai. Pan : Aaacf1621M Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…1 ITA 6081/Mum/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI Before Shri G Manjunatha (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND Shri Ravish Sood (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Firmenich Aromatics (India) vs ACIT-9(3)(1), Mumbai Pvt Ltd, 9th Floor, Arena Space, CTS 20, New Shyam Nagar Road, Behind Majas Bus Depot, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai. PAN : AAACF1621M APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Appellant by Shri Dhanesh Bafna / Hirali Desai / Kiresh Respondent by Shri Rignesh K Das Date of hearing 08-04-2019 Date of pronouncement -06-2019 O R D E R Per G Manjunatha, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against directions…

Kishor Hira Bhandari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 30(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 370/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Ravish Soodshri Kishore Hira Bhandari I.T.O 30(2)(1) Kishore Bhandari Chawl, Mumbai Behind Mamta Medical Store, Vs. Marve Road, Malad (West), Mumbai – 400064

For Appellant: Shri Anil Thakrar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 54

…/2018 AY 2014-15 Shri Kishore Hira Bhandari Vs. I.T.O 30(2)(1) 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 Vs Alom Extrusion Ltd [(2009) 319 ITR 306 SC)], 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 legal provis…

Shri Prakashkumar Natvarlal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 262/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 43(5)Section 43(5)(e)

…ITA No.: 262/Ahd/2015 Assessment year: 2010-11 Page 1 of 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD B BENCH, AHMEDABAD [Coram: Justice P P Bhatt, President and Pramod Kumar, Vice President] ITA No.: 262/Ahd/2015 Assessment year: 2010-11 Prakashkumar Natvarlal Patel ……..………………..Appellant Prop. of M/s. Jiya Enterprise, F-204, Uma Sharanam, Opp. Nirman Homes, New S.G. Road, Gota, Ahmedabad-382481 [PAN : AOLLP 6510 K] Vs Income Tax Officer ……………..…........Respondent Ward 3(3), Ahmedabad Appearances by Ashwin Shah, Bhadresh G. for the appellant Mudit Nagpal for the respondent Date of concluding the hearin…

Dy.CIT, Circle-2, Nagpur vs. M/S Sunvijay Rolling and Enginering Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, all the three appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 161/NAG/2018[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 May 2019AY 2015-2016

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

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri U.U. Kasar

…t allowable for the year under consideration. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in interpreting the decision held by the decision of Apex Court in the case of M/s. Alom Extrusion Ltd. & Others reported at 319 ITR 306 (SC) and thereby deleting the addition made by the AO on account of delayed payment of PF & ESIC. 4. Any other ground of that may be raised at the time of hearing” 11. The ld. AR submitted that the ground Nos. 1 and 2 raised in the appeal by Revenue are identical to the one raised in ITA No. 514/NAG/2016 for the assessment year 2013-14. The facts…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2, Nagpur vs. Sanvijay Rolling & Engg.Limited, Nagpur

In the result, all the three appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 100/NAG/2018[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 May 2019AY 2014-2015

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

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri U.U. Kasar

Dy. C.I.T. Cir-.2, Nagpur vs. M/S Sanvijay Rolling & Engineering Ltd., Nagpur

In the result, all the three appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 514/NAG/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 May 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri U.U. Kasar

Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai

In the result, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 9090/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannuand Shri Pawan Singhm/S Patel Engineering Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Patel Estate Road, Jogeshwari Tax-8(2), Mumbai (Formerly Vs. (West), Mumbai-400102. Known Dcit Central 24&26, Mumbai). Pan: Aaacp2567L Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Mayur Kisnadwala (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.05.2019

For Appellant: Shri Mayur Kisnadwala (AR)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari (DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 253Section 80ISection 85Section 86

…though it has not been stated specifically by the amending Act. This proposition find strong support from the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Allied Motors (P) Ltd. Etc. v. CIT, 224 ITR 677 and in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306. The Hon’ble Apex Court while interpreting the proviso to section 43B brought in the statute with a particular date was treated as curative and was held to be applicable retrospectively. The relevant observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd. following the ratio of in the case of Allied Motors (P) Ltd. (supra) re…

Loknath Saraf Securities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-6, Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 955/KOL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T. A No. 955/Kol/2017 A.Y 2007-08 M/S. Loknath Saraf Securities V/S. A.C.I.T, Circle-6, Kolkata Pvt. Ltd. Pan: Aaacl4567A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocare, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Nayak, CIT, ld.DR

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM & Shri S.S. Godara, JM] I.T. A No. 955/Kol/2017 A.Y 2007-08 M/s. Loknath Saraf Securities V/s. A.C.I.T, Circle-6, Kolkata Pvt. Ltd. PAN: AAACL4567A (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocare, ld.AR For the Respondent /Department : Shri A.K. Nayak, CIT, ld.DR Date of Hearing : 23-01-2019 & 17-05-2019 Date of Pronouncement : 17 -05-2019 ORDER Shri S.S. Godara, JM: 1. This Assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2007-08 arises against the CIT(A), 17, Kolkata’s order da…

M/S.Magnum Buildtech, Alappuzha vs. The DCIT, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 317/COCH/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 40

…o him, this issue is a debatable issue and the Assessing Officer should not have dealt the issue in dispute u/s. 154 of the Act. I.T.A. No.317/Coch/2018 The Ld. AR also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (319 ITR 306)wherein it was held that the omission of the second proviso to section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Finance Act, 2003, operated, retrospectively, with effect from april 1, 1988 and not prospectively from April, 2004. Earlier under the second proviso to section 43B as amended by the Finance Act, 1989, assesses were entitled to deductio…

Hutatma Kisan Ahir Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Sangli vs. Dy. CIT, Sangli

In the result, all the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed as indicated above

ITA 2255/PUN/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 May 2019AY 2009-10

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

…te deposit of employees‟ contribution to PF/ESIC, which has been allowed by the Tribunal in Majalgaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra), in turn, relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Alom Extrusions Limited (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC). 11. The next issue which has been raised is against allowability of provision of Vasantdada Sugar Institute (in short „VSI‟) contribution which stands settled by the ratio laid down by the Pune Bench of Tribunal in the case of Bhima S.S.K. Ltd. in ITA No.1414/PUN/2000, which is also to be allowed in the hands of assessee and the Tribunal i…

Karmyogi Shankarraoji Patil Ssk Ltd., Pune vs. ITO, Pune

In the result, all the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed as indicated above

ITA 2233/PUN/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 May 2019AY 2009-10

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

Kumbhi Kasari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Kolhapur vs. ACIT, Kolhapur

In the result, all the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed as indicated above

ITA 2222/PUN/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 May 2019AY 2009-10

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