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.

Srinivasa Fashions Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos 1965, 1966 & 1967 are

ITA 1966/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 /Mds/2016 & 2096/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12& 2009-10 M/S. Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1A, Regency Apartments, Vs. Corporate Circle -6(2), No. 5, 1St Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, New Block, 7Th Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 034. [Pan: Aaics 9511R]

For Appellant: ShriT. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 32(1)(ii)Section 47

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण ,’ ए ’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य केसम# BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 /Mds/2016 & 2096/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12& 2009-10 M/s. Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 1A, Regency Apartments, Vs. Corporate Circle -6(2), No. 5, 1st Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, New Block, 7th Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Nungambakkam High Road, Chenna…

Srinivasa Fashions Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos 1965, 1966 & 1967 are

ITA 1965/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 /Mds/2016 & 2096/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12& 2009-10 M/S. Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1A, Regency Apartments, Vs. Corporate Circle -6(2), No. 5, 1St Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, New Block, 7Th Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 034. [Pan: Aaics 9511R]

For Appellant: ShriT. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 32(1)(ii)Section 47

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण ,’ ए ’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य केसम# BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 /Mds/2016 & 2096/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12& 2009-10 M/s. Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 1A, Regency Apartments, Vs. Corporate Circle -6(2), No. 5, 1st Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, New Block, 7th Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Nungambakkam High Road, Chenna…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Srinivasa Fashions Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos 1965, 1966 & 1967 are

ITA 1130/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 /Mds/2016 & 2096/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12& 2009-10 M/S. Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1A, Regency Apartments, Vs. Corporate Circle -6(2), No. 5, 1St Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, New Block, 7Th Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 034. [Pan: Aaics 9511R]

For Appellant: ShriT. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 32(1)(ii)Section 47

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण ,’ ए ’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य केसम# BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 /Mds/2016 & 2096/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12& 2009-10 M/s. Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 1A, Regency Apartments, Vs. Corporate Circle -6(2), No. 5, 1st Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, New Block, 7th Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Nungambakkam High Road, Chenna…

Manager Union Bank of India Loharu Road Bhiwani, Rohtak vs. ITO (TDS), Hisar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1940/DEL/2015[2013-14 (F.Y.- 2012-13)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 1936/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Shiv Raj Kumar Batra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shiv Raj Singh, Sr. DR
Section 11(3)Section 139Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)

…levied u/s 201(1A) of the Act, therefore, the interest charged u/s 201(1A) by the ITO(TDS) was justified. A reference was made to the following case laws: " CIT Vs Prem Nath Motors (P) Ltd. 253 ITR 705 (Del.) " Allied Motors 224 ITR 677 (SC) " Alom Extrusions 319 ITR 306 (SC) " Jubilee Investments & Industries Ltd. Vs ACIT 238 ITR 648 (Cal.) 8. Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submission made before the authorities below and further submitted that the income of the deductee was totally exempt and no TDS was deductible. Therefore, when there was no liability of TDS, th…

Manager Union Bank of India Loharu Road Bhiwani, Rohtak vs. ITO (TDS), Hisar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1939/DEL/2015[2012-13 (F.Y. 2011-12)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 1936/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Shiv Raj Kumar Batra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shiv Raj Singh, Sr. DR
Section 11(3)Section 139Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)

…levied u/s 201(1A) of the Act, therefore, the interest charged u/s 201(1A) by the ITO(TDS) was justified. A reference was made to the following case laws: " CIT Vs Prem Nath Motors (P) Ltd. 253 ITR 705 (Del.) " Allied Motors 224 ITR 677 (SC) " Alom Extrusions 319 ITR 306 (SC) " Jubilee Investments & Industries Ltd. Vs ACIT 238 ITR 648 (Cal.) 8. Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submission made before the authorities below and further submitted that the income of the deductee was totally exempt and no TDS was deductible. Therefore, when there was no liability of TDS, th…

Manager Union Bank of India Loharu Road Bhiwani, Rohtak vs. ITO (TDS), Hisar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1938/DEL/2015[2011-12 (F.Y. 2010-11)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 1936/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Shiv Raj Kumar Batra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shiv Raj Singh, Sr. DR
Section 11(3)Section 139Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)

…levied u/s 201(1A) of the Act, therefore, the interest charged u/s 201(1A) by the ITO(TDS) was justified. A reference was made to the following case laws: " CIT Vs Prem Nath Motors (P) Ltd. 253 ITR 705 (Del.) " Allied Motors 224 ITR 677 (SC) " Alom Extrusions 319 ITR 306 (SC) " Jubilee Investments & Industries Ltd. Vs ACIT 238 ITR 648 (Cal.) 8. Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submission made before the authorities below and further submitted that the income of the deductee was totally exempt and no TDS was deductible. Therefore, when there was no liability of TDS, th…

Manager Union Bank of India Loharu Road Bhiwani, Rohtak vs. ITO (TDS), Hisar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1937/DEL/2015[2010-11 (F.Y. 2009-10)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 1936/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Shiv Raj Kumar Batra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shiv Raj Singh, Sr. DR
Section 11(3)Section 139Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)

…levied u/s 201(1A) of the Act, therefore, the interest charged u/s 201(1A) by the ITO(TDS) was justified. A reference was made to the following case laws: " CIT Vs Prem Nath Motors (P) Ltd. 253 ITR 705 (Del.) " Allied Motors 224 ITR 677 (SC) " Alom Extrusions 319 ITR 306 (SC) " Jubilee Investments & Industries Ltd. Vs ACIT 238 ITR 648 (Cal.) 8. Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submission made before the authorities below and further submitted that the income of the deductee was totally exempt and no TDS was deductible. Therefore, when there was no liability of TDS, th…

Manager Union Bank of India Loharu Road Bhiwani, Rohtak vs. ITO (TDS), Hisar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1936/DEL/2015[2009-10 (F.Y. 2008-09)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 1936/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Shiv Raj Kumar Batra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shiv Raj Singh, Sr. DR
Section 11(3)Section 139Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)

…levied u/s 201(1A) of the Act, therefore, the interest charged u/s 201(1A) by the ITO(TDS) was justified. A reference was made to the following case laws: " CIT Vs Prem Nath Motors (P) Ltd. 253 ITR 705 (Del.) " Allied Motors 224 ITR 677 (SC) " Alom Extrusions 319 ITR 306 (SC) " Jubilee Investments & Industries Ltd. Vs ACIT 238 ITR 648 (Cal.) 8. Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submission made before the authorities below and further submitted that the income of the deductee was totally exempt and no TDS was deductible. Therefore, when there was no liability of TDS, th…

M/S. Powerware India Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 206/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.S.Sainiआयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.206/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Powerware India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-1(2), 6A, Zone-B, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar- 751010 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp 1607 R (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri NoneFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 194ASection 194CSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

…ion (2) of Section 24 (x) read with Section 36 (1) (va) of the Act for disallowing the same. 11. In support of the aforesaid stand, learned counsel for the appellant relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [20091 319 ITR 306/185 Taxman 416. following which the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. [2014] 368 ITR 749/228 Taxman 340/53 taxmaim.com 141 and Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Hernia Embroidery Mills (P.) Ltd. [20141 366 ITR 167/217 Taxman 207/37 taxmann.com 160 (Puni. & Har.) have held that both the employee…

Elico Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad

The appeals are allowed

ITTA/217/2005HC Telangana29 Nov 2017

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Hyderabad & The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'A', Hyderabad, Having Been Dismissed, The Assessee Filed The Present Appeals. 2. Sri S.Dwarakanath, Learned Counsel For The Appellant, Has Placed Before Us The Judgment In Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Alom Extrusions Limited1 & Submitted That In The Said Judgment, The Supreme Court Held That Deletion Of Second Proviso To Section 43-B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, 'The Act'), Based On Which Disallowance Was Made Being Curative, Has Retrospective Operation From 01-04-1988, The Date On Which The Said Provision Was Introduced. He Has Accordingly Submitted That In View Of The Said Judgment, The Appeals Deserve To Be Allowed. Sri B.Narasimha Sarma, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For Income Tax Department, Has Fairly Conceded The Submission Of Leaned Counsel For The Appellant.

For Appellant: Dr. N.R.Siva SwamyFor Respondent: Sri B.Narasimha Sarma
Section 43

…ppeals deserve to be allowed. Sri B.Narasimha Sarma, learned senior standing counsel for Income Tax Department, has fairly conceded the submission of leaned counsel for the appellant. 1 (2010) 1 SCC 489 CVNR, J. & TA, J. itta_217 & 218_2005 3 3. Inasmuch as the view taken by the appellate authorities that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of deletion of the second proviso to Section 43-B of the Act by holding that the said deletion has only prospective effect has been reversed by the Supreme Court in Alom Extrusion…

Elico Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad

The appeals are allowed

ITTA/218/2005HC Telangana29 Nov 2017

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Hyderabad & The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'A', Hyderabad, Having Been Dismissed, The Assessee Filed The Present Appeals. 2. Sri S.Dwarakanath, Learned Counsel For The Appellant, Has Placed Before Us The Judgment In Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Alom Extrusions Limited1 & Submitted That In The Said Judgment, The Supreme Court Held That Deletion Of Second Proviso To Section 43-B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, 'The Act'), Based On Which Disallowance Was Made Being Curative, Has Retrospective Operation From 01-04-1988, The Date On Which The Said Provision Was Introduced. He Has Accordingly Submitted That In View Of The Said Judgment, The Appeals Deserve To Be Allowed. Sri B.Narasimha Sarma, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For Income Tax Department, Has Fairly Conceded The Submission Of Leaned Counsel For The Appellant.

For Appellant: Dr. N.R.Siva SwamyFor Respondent: Sri B.Narasimha Sarma
Section 43

…ppeals deserve to be allowed. Sri B.Narasimha Sarma, learned senior standing counsel for Income Tax Department, has fairly conceded the submission of leaned counsel for the appellant. 1 (2010) 1 SCC 489 CVNR, J. & TA, J. itta_217 & 218_2005 3 3. Inasmuch as the view taken by the appellate authorities that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of deletion of the second proviso to Section 43-B of the Act by holding that the said deletion has only prospective effect has been reversed by the Supreme Court in Alom Extrusion…

ITO Corporate Ward 4(4), Chennai vs. Layam Flexi Solutions Private Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 2106/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Respondent: Mr.RameshNanavati,C.A
Section 143(3)Section 244Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40ASection 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, B/‘SMC’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B/“SMC” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी. चं" पूजार" लेखा सद"य , के सम" । BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.Nos. 2105 & 2106/Mds./2017 (Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15 ) The Income Tax officer , M/s.Layam Flexi Solutions Vs. Corprote Ward 4(4), Pvt Ltd., 131/1, 5th Cross street, Chennai-34. Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai 600 020. PAN AABCL 6457 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr.N.Madhavan,, ACIT, D.R अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Mr.RameshNanavati,C.A : 15.11.2017 सुनवाई क" तार"…

ITO Corporate Ward 4(4), Chennai vs. Layam Flexi Solutions Private Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 2105/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Respondent: Mr.RameshNanavati,C.A
Section 143(3)Section 244Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40ASection 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, B/‘SMC’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B/“SMC” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी. चं" पूजार" लेखा सद"य , के सम" । BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.Nos. 2105 & 2106/Mds./2017 (Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15 ) The Income Tax officer , M/s.Layam Flexi Solutions Vs. Corprote Ward 4(4), Pvt Ltd., 131/1, 5th Cross street, Chennai-34. Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai 600 020. PAN AABCL 6457 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr.N.Madhavan,, ACIT, D.R अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Mr.RameshNanavati,C.A : 15.11.2017 सुनवाई क" तार"…

Auto Shell Cast Pvt Ltd., Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 931/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.931/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-2014

For Respondent: Shri M. Palanichamy, JCIT
Section 14ASection 43B

…of M/s. Industrial Security & Intelligence India Pvt. Ltd (supra) had held as under at paras 5 & 6 of its judgment. ‘’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 Mittal Pharma Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 734/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Nov 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

…the following case laws: ITA 734/JP/2017_ 9 M/s Mittal Pharma P. Ltd. Vs ITO (i) Shri Rajendra Yadav vs. ITO (Jaipur Trib) ITA No.895/JP/2012 pronounced on 29.01.2016. (ii) Allied Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 224 1TR 677 (SC) (iii) CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306 (SC) In view of above, the disallowance confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) be directed to be deleted or alternatively be restricted to 30% of the amount disallowed in case of Barclays Investment & Loan (India) Ltd. 6. On the other hand, the ld DR has relied on the orders of the authorities below. 7. I have heard both the sides on this issue. The issue…

Subhalaxmi Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Nayagarh vs. JCIT, Ramge-2, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and that of

ITA 132/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 194ASection 194CSection 194JSection 40

…on (2) of Section 24 (x) read with Section 36 (1) (va) of the Act for disallowing the same. 11. In support of the aforesaid stand, learned counsel for the appellant relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [20091 319 ITR 306/185 Taxman 416. following which the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. [2014] 368 ITR 749/228 Taxman 340/53 taxmaim.com 141 and Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Hernia Embroidery Mills (P.) Ltd. [20141 366 ITR 167/217 Taxman 207/37 taxmann.com 160 (Puni. & Har.) have held that both the employee…

Isys Softech Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

ITA 81/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena
Section 10ASection 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…sequence of the disallowance of the employer's and the employee's contribution is that the business profits have to that extent been enhanced. There was, as we have already noted, an add back by the Assessing Officer to the income. All profits of the 4 (2009) 319 ITR 306 unit of the assessee have been derived from manufacturing activity. The salaries paid by the assessee, it has not been disputed, relate to the manufacturing activity. The disallowance of the Provident Fund/ ESIC payments has been made because of the statutory provisions - Section 43B in the case of the employer's contribution and Section 36(v) re…

DCIT, Cir-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Lbi Export Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 558/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Nov 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: : Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.CIT, ld.Sr.DRFor Respondent: None appeared
Section 13(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(24)

…283/- were deposited by the assessee after the due date of payment and as per Section 2(24) r.w.s 36(1)(va) of the Act claimed the same as allowable expenditure by relying on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusion Ltd reported in 319 ITR 306, wherein it has been held that PF/ESI are allowed, when the same was deposited before furnishing of return of income. But, the AO was of the view that since the assessee had failed to deposit the same within the due dates specified u/s. 2(24) r.w.s 36(1)(va) of the Act added the same to the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by such orde…

DCIT, Gurgaon vs. M/S. Leaseforces Staffing India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6267/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. O.P. Kant

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

…vident Fund/ESI, it is important to analyze the genesis of the inclusion of payment of provident fund in section 43B of the IT Act. The same has been elaborately explained in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. ALOM Extrusion Limited (319 ITR 306)(SC) (2009). In this judgment, it has been explained that income has been defined under section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act as including employees' contribution to Provident Fund/superannuation fund or any other funds set up under Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 or any other fund for welfare for such employees. Since, employees' contribution cons…

DCIT, Gurgaon vs. M/S. Leaseforces Staffing India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6266/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. O.P. Kant

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

…vident Fund/ESI, it is important to analyze the genesis of the inclusion of payment of provident fund in section 43B of the IT Act. The same has been elaborately explained in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. ALOM Extrusion Limited (319 ITR 306)(SC) (2009). In this judgment, it has been explained that income has been defined under section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act as including employees' contribution to Provident Fund/superannuation fund or any other funds set up under Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 or any other fund for welfare for such employees. Since, employees' contribution cons…