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.

Akriti Jewelcraftz (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2262/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…eas the Hon’ble High Courts of Bombay, Himachal Pradesh, Calcutta, Guwahati and Delhi have favoured the interpretation beneficial to the assessee. The Hon’ble Apex Bench effectively reversed the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (1 SCC 489) relied upon by the assessee. 4. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I in CA No. 2833/2016 vide order dated 12.10.2022 observed that there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts viz., the employers’ contribution and employees’ contribution required to…

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Delhi vs. Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2017-18 and appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 and 2018-19 are dismissed

ITA 2051/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shuklaasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Singh Kothari, CIT DR DR
Section 144Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36

…Act in assessment order dated 12.f2/2019 u/s 144 of the Act. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that disallowance made is contrary to judgment of Apex Court in the case of IT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 306 and, therefore the same is untenable and liable to be deleted as such. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts by upholding disallowance of Rs. 73,65,600/- representing 50% of the ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 1,47,31,200/- made in the assessment order dated 12.12.2019 u/s 144 of the Act, out of fo…

Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2017-18 and appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 and 2018-19 are dismissed

ITA 1569/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shuklaasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Singh Kothari, CIT DR DR
Section 144Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36

…Act in assessment order dated 12.f2/2019 u/s 144 of the Act. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that disallowance made is contrary to judgment of Apex Court in the case of IT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 306 and, therefore the same is untenable and liable to be deleted as such. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts by upholding disallowance of Rs. 73,65,600/- representing 50% of the ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 1,47,31,200/- made in the assessment order dated 12.12.2019 u/s 144 of the Act, out of fo…

Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, CC-2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2017-18 and appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 and 2018-19 are dismissed

ITA 1568/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shuklaasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Singh Kothari, CIT DR DR
Section 144Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36

…Act in assessment order dated 12.f2/2019 u/s 144 of the Act. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that disallowance made is contrary to judgment of Apex Court in the case of IT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 306 and, therefore the same is untenable and liable to be deleted as such. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts by upholding disallowance of Rs. 73,65,600/- representing 50% of the ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 1,47,31,200/- made in the assessment order dated 12.12.2019 u/s 144 of the Act, out of fo…

Smg International, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-30(5), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1500/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)(A)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…eas the Hon’ble High Courts of Bombay, Himachal Pradesh, Calcutta, Guwahati and Delhi have favoured the interpretation beneficial to the assessee. The Hon’ble Apex Bench effectively reversed the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (1 SCC 489) relied upon by the assessee. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I in CA No. 2833/2016 vide order dated 12.10.2022 observed that there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts viz., the employers’ contribution and employees’ contribution required to…

Complete Solutions Facilty Management Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1323/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambartha
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…een made before the date of filing the return of income then the same be allowed under section 43B of the Complete Solutions Facility Management Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.1323/Mum./2023 Act in light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Alom Extrusions, 319 ITR 306 (SC). 9. Insofar as the payment towards employees’ contribution to ESIC is concerned, we find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that the payment towards employees’ contribution to P.F./E.S.I.C., after the due date prescribed under the relevant statute is not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(v…

Lit India P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-15(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2698/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Atul Puri, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

…eas the Hon’ble High Courts of Bombay, Himachal Pradesh, Calcutta, Guwahati and Delhi have favoured the interpretation beneficial to the assessee. The Hon’ble Apex Bench effectively reversed the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (1 SCC 489) relied upon by the assessee. 4. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I in CA No. 2833/2016 vide order dated 12.10.2022 observed that there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts viz., the employers’ contribution and employees’ contribution required to…

Lit India P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 15(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2697/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Atul Puri, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

…eas the Hon’ble High Courts of Bombay, Himachal Pradesh, Calcutta, Guwahati and Delhi have favoured the interpretation beneficial to the assessee. The Hon’ble Apex Bench effectively reversed the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (1 SCC 489) relied upon by the assessee. 4. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I in CA No. 2833/2016 vide order dated 12.10.2022 observed that there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts viz., the employers’ contribution and employees’ contribution required to…

Krishna Upkeep P Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 14(3), Delhi

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

ITA 2273/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. R. K. Gour, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Kant Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

…eas the Hon’ble High Courts of Bombay, Himachal Pradesh, Calcutta, Guwahati and Delhi have favoured the interpretation beneficial to the assessee. The Hon’ble Apex Bench effectively reversed the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (1 SCC 489) relied upon by the assessee. 3. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I in CA No. 2833/2016 vide order dated 12.10.2022 observed that there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts viz., the employers’ contribution and employees’ contribution required to…

Krishna Upkeep P Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 14(3), Delhi

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

ITA 2272/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. R. K. Gour, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Kant Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

…eas the Hon’ble High Courts of Bombay, Himachal Pradesh, Calcutta, Guwahati and Delhi have favoured the interpretation beneficial to the assessee. The Hon’ble Apex Bench effectively reversed the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (1 SCC 489) relied upon by the assessee. 3. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I in CA No. 2833/2016 vide order dated 12.10.2022 observed that there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts viz., the employers’ contribution and employees’ contribution required to…

Ortem Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kol, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 500/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 Ortem Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. Pcit - 2, Kolkata P-141, Kalindi Housing Estate, Vs. Kalindi Vatika, 4D, Block-B, Lake Town, Kolkata-700089. Pan: Aabco 2390 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri S. Datta, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, Kolkata-2 Dated 21.03.2023 Framed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Of The Ld. Pcit Is Contrary To Law & The Facts Of The Appellant Case. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Pcit Erred In Holding That Order Passed U/S 143(3) Dated 08-02- 2021 Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue. 3. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Pcit Erred In Disallowing Employee Contribution Of Rs. 1,53,300/- & Employer Contribution Of Rs. 1,44,998/- Made Towards Provident Fund (Pf) & Employee State Insurance Corporation (Esic). 4. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Pcit Erred In Not Considering The Fact That Both Employee & Employer Contribution Aggregating Rs. 2,98,298/- Was Made Before The Due Date Of Filing Income Tax Return.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)Section 43B

…t. In all probability deductions on account of ESI and PF claimed by the assessee company was allowed by the National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi relying on the decision of Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 and various other decisions cited above. Thus, the order w/s. 143(3) passed by the National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi for the concerned 4 Ortem Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2018-19 assessment year cannot be said to be erroneous on the basis of the prevailing law of the land. Now, the amendment in the Budget 2021 has been brought in from 01-04-202…

Shivalic Power Control P.Ltd, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 137/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

…eas the Hon’ble High Courts of Bombay, Himachal Pradesh, Calcutta, Guwahati and Delhi have favoured the interpretation beneficial to the assessee. The Hon’ble Apex Bench effectively reversed the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (1 SCC 489) relied upon by the assessee. 4. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I in CA No. 2833/2016 vide order dated 12.10.2022 observed that there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts viz., the employers’ contribution and employees’ contribution required to…

Ashirbad Housekeeping Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO- Ward 3(3), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2303/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Satyajeet Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…hal Pradesh, Calcutta, Guwahati and Delhi have favoured the interpretation beneficial to the assessee. The Hon’ble Apex Bench effectively reversed 3 Ashirbad Housekeeping Services Pvt. Ltd. the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (1 SCC 489) relied upon by the assessee. 4. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I in CA No. 2833/2016 vide order dated 12.10.2022 observed that there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts viz., the employers’ contribution and employees’ contribution required to…

Chandra Shekhar Tiwari, Flat No. B-9, D-224, Tanwar Residency, Tulsi Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 101/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…Vs SBBJ and JVVNL , 363 ITR 70 (Raj) 2. CIT Vs. Udaipur DugdhUtpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., Udaipur (2014), 366 ITR 163 (Raj) 3. CIT vs Ghatge Patil Transporters Ltd. (2014) 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) 4. CIT vs SBBJ (2014) 99 DTR 131(Raj) 5. CIT vs Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306 (SC) 4 Chandra Shekhar Tiwari vs ITO, Ward 1(2), Jaipur 6. CIT vs JVNNL 98 DTR 105 (Raj) 7. CIT Vs. Udaipur DugdhUtpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., Udaipur, 98 DTR 109 (Raj) 8. CIT Vs Vinay Cement Ltd. (2007) 213 CTR 268 (SC) 9. Mahadev Cold Storage vs Jurisdictional AO (ITA No. 41 & 42/Agr/2021 dated 14-06-2021 10. Pr. CIT vs Pro Interactive Service…

Dhanya Promoters Private Limited, Delhi vs. Central Circle-13, Delhi

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

ITA 258/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 43

…eas the Hon’ble High Courts of Bombay, Himachal Pradesh, Calcutta, Guwahati and Delhi have favoured the interpretation beneficial to the assessee. The Hon’ble Apex Bench effectively reversed the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (1 SCC 489) relied upon by the assessee. 3 Dhanya Promoters Pvt. Ltd. 4. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I in CA No. 2833/2016 vide order dated 12.10.2022 observed that there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts viz., the employers’ contribution and employ…

M/S Sreelekshmi Cashew Company, Kollam vs. The ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Kollam

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 879/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkeysreelekshmi Cashew Company The Income Tax Officer Lekshmi Prabha, Kadappakkada Ward - 1 & Tps, Kollam Vs. Kollam 691008 [Pan:Aazfs1211Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri T.V. Hariharan, Ca Respondent By: Dr. Prasanth V.K., Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri T.V. Hariharan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Prasanth V.K., CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 44A

…n fact since attained finality, i.e., on pan-India basis, by the decision by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (in Civil Appeal 2833/2016, dated 12/10/2022).Needless to add, the decision by it in CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306(SC), being qua the employer’s contribution, deductible u/s. 37(1) of the Act, is not on the point. Reliance thereon is misplaced, more so as the same stands also considered by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, both in Merchem Ltd.(supra)and Popular Vehicles & Services P. Ltd.(supra).The same was in fact concerned with the retrospectivity or…

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Wyeth Ltd ( Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3508/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepfizer Limited V. Acit- Special Range 23 (Earlier Known As Wyeth Lederle Limited) [Now The Dcit-Circle 7(3)] The Capital, G-Block Aayakar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai- 400020 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400012 Pan: Aaacp3334M (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit- Ltu V. M/S. Wyeth Limited 28Th Floor, Centre - 1 (Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd) Rbc Mahindra Towers World Trade Centre 4Th Floor, A- Wing Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Dr G.M. Bhosale Road Worli, Mumbai- 400055 Pan: Aaacw2641Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vishal Kalra Department Represented By : Smt. Sujatha Iyangar

Section 43(6)Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Pfizer Limited v. ACIT- Special Range 23 (Earlier known as Wyeth Lederle Limited) [Now the DCIT-Circle 7(3)] The Capital, G-Block Aayakar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai- 400020 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400012 PAN: AAACP3334M (Appellant) (Respondent) ACIT- LTU v. M/s. Wyeth Limited 28th Floor, Centre - 1 (Formerly known as wyeth Lederle Ltd) RBC Mahindra Towers World Trade Centre 4th Floor, A- Wing Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Dr G.M. Bhosale Road Worli, Mumb…

Arun Waman Koli, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalure

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 413/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2023AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Naina K. Kumar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…urt in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (2015) 53 taxmann.com 141 (Bombay), CIT vs. 3 Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 1 (Bombay) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC). Further, the Tribunal has in number of decisions held that the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 are applicable for Assessment Year 2021-22, and therefore, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance by placing reliance on the same. According to the Learned Authorised Representative for the Appellant only prima-facie ad…

M/S. Nandi Hospitality Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 296/BANG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

…ered allowable as deduction on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court held in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-II Jaipur Vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. and other cases. (Supreme Court CIT Vs. Alom Extructions Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC)) ITA Nos.294 to 296/Bang/2023 Nandi Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 5 of 22` 4.5 Records clearly show that employees' contribution towards EPF and ESI has been paid and deposited to the fund concerned before filing of return of income u/s 139(1). However, due to cash flow problems and resulting financial hardship there was d…

M/S. Nandi Hospitality Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 295/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

…ered allowable as deduction on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court held in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-II Jaipur Vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. and other cases. (Supreme Court CIT Vs. Alom Extructions Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC)) ITA Nos.294 to 296/Bang/2023 Nandi Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 5 of 22` 4.5 Records clearly show that employees' contribution towards EPF and ESI has been paid and deposited to the fund concerned before filing of return of income u/s 139(1). However, due to cash flow problems and resulting financial hardship there was d…