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.

Shri Dudhganga Vedganga Sah: Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Kolhapur vs. ACIT, Kolhapur

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

ITA 1090/PUN/2012[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 May 2019AY 1999-00

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…

Shri Dudhganga Vedganga Sah: Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Kolhapur vs. ACIT, Kolhapur

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

ITA 1089/PUN/2012[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 May 2019AY 1998-99

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…

Shri Dudhganga Vedganga Sah: Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Kolhapur vs. ACIT, Kolhapur

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

ITA 1088/PUN/2012[19997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 May 2019

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…

Dy.CIT, Cir.-3(1), Dhule vs. Shirpur Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Dahiwad

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

ITA 550/PUN/2011[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 May 2019AY 1997-98

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…

Asst. Comm. of Income-Tax, Aurangabad vs. Siddheswar Ssk Ltd., Aurangabad

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

ITA 1628/PUN/2011[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 May 2019AY 1993-94

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…

Sahakarmaharshi Bhausaheb Thorat Sah. Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Ahmednagar vs. ACIT, A'Nagar Cir., Ahmednagar

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

ITA 1260/PUN/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 May 2019AY 2000-01

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…

Sidheshwar Sah. Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Aurangabad vs. DCIT, S.R.-2, Aurangabad

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

ITA 1210/PUN/1997[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 May 2019AY 1992-93

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…

M/S Snowtex Investment Limited vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central -2, Kolkata

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed reportable

C.A. No.-004483-004483 - 2019Supreme Court30 Apr 2019

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 43(5)Section 43(5)(d)Section 73

…of Rs. 9.58 crores. In this background, the High Court came to the conclusion that the principal business for the assessment year was not the granting of loans and advances. This finding was supported on the above two 2 (1997) 3 SCC 472 3 (2010) 1 SCC 489 6 grounds. 11 On the second issue of the claim of retrospectivity, it was urged that though the Court has the power in an appropriate case, based on the intent of the legislature to hold that an amendment is retrospective, the position in this case is quite distinct. In the present case, it was submitted that when the provisions of Section 4…

Ajara Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Kolhapur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Kolhapur

In the result, all the appeals are fully/partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 912/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

…be affirmed in the first appeal. 15. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. It is found that the issue raised herein is no more res integra. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Limited (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) has held that the amendment to first proviso and omission of the second proviso to section 43B by the Finance Act, 2003, is retrospective. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Aimil Limited (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) has allowed deduction in respect of employees’ share when the amount was paid before the due date. When we consi…

Ajara Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Kolhapur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Kolhapur

In the result, all the appeals are fully/partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 911/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

…be affirmed in the first appeal. 15. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. It is found that the issue raised herein is no more res integra. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Limited (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) has held that the amendment to first proviso and omission of the second proviso to section 43B by the Finance Act, 2003, is retrospective. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Aimil Limited (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) has allowed deduction in respect of employees’ share when the amount was paid before the due date. When we consi…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Sona Vets Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 1647/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh.S.S.Viswanethra Ravivs M/S. Sona Vets Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), 17Th Floor, Room No.17B & C, Kolkata-700107. Everest House, 46C, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-700071. Pan-Aaecs0908G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Dr. P.K.Srihari, Cit Dr Respondent By Shikha Agarwal, Aoa Date Of Hearing 24.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 23.04.2019 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravithis Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 04.05.2017 Passed By Cit(A)-20, Kolkata For Ay 2014-15. 2. Ground Nos. 1 To 4 Are Relating To Deletion Of Addition Made On Account Of Deduction U/S 80Ia Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”).

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…Heard both parties and perused the material available on record. The AO added the impugned amount for not depositing employees contribution before the statutory due date. The CIT(A) deleted the said amount by placing reliance in the case of Alom Extrusion Ld. 319 ITR 306 (SC) by holding no disallowance is maintainable if the deposit is made before the due date of filing the return of income. We find the CIT(A) examined the record and found that said employees contribution was deposited before filing the return of income. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order CIT(A), accordingly it is justified. Thus, Groun…

Herrenknecht India P.Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Cir 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2108/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

Section 144Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 40Section 40aSection 92C

…s covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of CIT vs Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd. (2014) 368 ITR 749, where the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court by following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Alom Extrusion Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306, held that if Provident Fund, including employees contribution is paid on or before due date of furnishing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, the same can be allowed as deduction. 5. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, strongly supported the order of the AO. 6. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Ganpati Exclusive Designer Sarees Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 696/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 56(1)

…ection 2(24)(x) of the Act and, therefore, the ITAT fell in error in upholding the order passed by the CIT(A). 7. The effect of deletion of second proviso to Section 43B of the Act was considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306/185 Taxman 416 and it was observed at page 314 of the report as under:- ".....section 43B (main section), which stood inserted by the Finance Act, 1983, with effect from April 1, 1984, expressly commences with a non obstante clause, the underlying object being to disallow deductions claimed merely by making a book entry based on the mercantile s…

M/S Ganpati Exclusive Designer Sarees Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1081/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 56(1)

…ection 2(24)(x) of the Act and, therefore, the ITAT fell in error in upholding the order passed by the CIT(A). 7. The effect of deletion of second proviso to Section 43B of the Act was considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306/185 Taxman 416 and it was observed at page 314 of the report as under:- ".....section 43B (main section), which stood inserted by the Finance Act, 1983, with effect from April 1, 1984, expressly commences with a non obstante clause, the underlying object being to disallow deductions claimed merely by making a book entry based on the mercantile s…

The ACIT 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Priyasha Meven Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5655/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjeet Singh

For Appellant: Shri Firoze Andhyarujina, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Kartikeyan, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 73

…Act by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 is to be applied retrospectively from the date of the insertion to Explanation to section 73 of the Act. In coming to this view, support from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (319 ITR 306) wherein their Lordships were considering the amendment made by Finance Act, 2003 by omitting the second proviso to section 43B of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2004 and bringing about uniformity in the first proviso by equating tax, duty, cess and fees with contribution to welfare funds (viz. Provident Fund, etc.). The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the af…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Ambajogai Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Beed

In the result, the appeals are allowed/partly allowed for statistical purpose in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

ITA 2171/PUN/2016[1992-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2019AY 1992-13

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

…rovident Fund but the amount was deposited before due date of filing return of income by the respective assessees. 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. 17 SSK Group Cases 14. The assessees eligibility to claim deduction of 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 after consideri…

Chopda Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Jalgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeals are allowed/partly allowed for statistical purpose in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

ITA 2064/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

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

…rovident Fund but the amount was deposited before due date of filing return of income by the respective assessees. 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. 17 SSK Group Cases 14. The assessees eligibility to claim deduction of 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 after consideri…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Chopda Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Jalgaon

In the result, the appeals are allowed/partly allowed for statistical purpose in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

ITA 1913/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

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

…rovident Fund but the amount was deposited before due date of filing return of income by the respective assessees. 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. 17 SSK Group Cases 14. The assessees eligibility to claim deduction of 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 after consideri…

Karmayogi Shankarraoji Patil Ssk Ltd., Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, the appeals are allowed/partly allowed for statistical purpose in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

ITA 1818/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

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

…rovident Fund but the amount was deposited before due date of filing return of income by the respective assessees. 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. 17 SSK Group Cases 14. The assessees eligibility to claim deduction of 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 after consideri…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Madhukar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Jalgaon

In the result, the appeals are allowed/partly allowed for statistical purpose in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

ITA 1181/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

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

…rovident Fund but the amount was deposited before due date of filing return of income by the respective assessees. 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. 17 SSK Group Cases 14. The assessees eligibility to claim deduction of 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 after consideri…