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.

Corrtech Energy Ltd., (Formerly Known As Mjb India Gas Turbine Services Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, (OSD), Range-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3433/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3443/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Pipara, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr.DR

Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘बी’, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ B ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD सव"ी "द"प कुमार के"डया, लेखा सद"य एवं महावीर "साद, "या"यक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3443/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/s.Corrtech Energy Ltd. The Dy.CIT (OSD) बनाम/ (formerly known as MJB India Gas Range-1, Ahmedabad Vs. Turbine Services Pvt.Ltd.) 22, Dhara Centre Vijay Char Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACI 8838 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant…

DCIT, Cir-4(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Stewart Holl (India) Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 664/KOL/2015[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: : Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(va)

…e records of the appellant. The due date for filing of return for A.Y 2006-07 was 30/11/2006 and the amount of Rs. 6,38,344/- was paid much before the due date. This ratio has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd 319 ITR 306. Therefore, humbly following the judgement of Apex Court, I delete the addition of Rs.6,38,344/- made by the AO. Ground no. 1 of the appeal is allowed.” 12. In view of above, we find no infirmity in the impugned order of the CIT-A. The CIT-A has given relief to the assessee basing on decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of supra. We…

DCIT, Cir-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Bhubrighat Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 663/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Dcit, Cicle-4(1), V/S. M/S Bhubrighat Tea Co. P-7, Chowringhee Pvt. Ltd. 6D, Shyamkunj, Square, Kolkata-69 12C, Lord Sinha Road, Kolkata-71 [Pan No.Aabcb 2972 J] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Arivnd Agarwal, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-09-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 11-10-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata Dated 23.01.2015. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-4, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 17.12.2008 For Assessment Year 2006-07. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Revenue Are Reproduced Hereinbelow:- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Cess On Green Leaf Of Rs.1172020/- Is An Allowable Expenditure Ignoring The Fact That Green Leaf Is Attributable To Agriculture Activities Which Is Taxable Under State Agriculture Income Tax Beyond The Purview Of Central Income Tax & As Per Rule 8 Only 40% Of The Composite Income Is Taxable Under Central Income Tax & Moreover On The Same Issue As Slp Is Pending Before Apex Court. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred On Facts As Well As In Law In Holding That Employees Contribution To Pf Of Rs.244399/- Is Allowed If Deposited Before Filing Of Return, Ignoring The Fact That

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

…ase of CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616/217 Taxman 64 (Mag.)/[2014] 366 ITR 163 (Raj.), the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, after referring to the apex court decision in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306/185 Taxman 416 & CIT v. Vinay Cement Ltd. [2007]213CTR 268 (SC) 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 v. State Bank of Bikaner, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court held that contribution paid after the due date under the respec…

DCIT, Tuticorin vs. Raja Agencies, Tuticorin

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

ITA 339/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mrs.S.Vidya, CAFor Respondent: Mr.A. Srinivasan, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 43BSection 80I

…in the case of Industrial Security and Intelligence (India) Pvt. Ltd. in TC Nos.585 & 586/2015 dated 24.07.2015 wherein the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court had followed the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusions reported in 319 ITR 306 and has held the issue in favour of the assessee in so far as if the employee’s contribution towards PF & ESI is deposited after the due date as prescribed under the relevant act but before the due date of filing of the return under the Income Tax Act, no disallowance could be made in view of the provisions of Sec.43B of the Act. 5. We have c…

Asst CIT 10(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Neo Sports Broadcast P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2007-08,

ITA 1432/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-2009 Assessment Year: 2007-2008 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 & Assessment Year: 2010-2011 The Acit-10(3)(1), Vs. M/S Neo Sports Broadcast R. No. 212, Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt. Ltd., M.K. Road, Nimbus Centre, Mumbai - 400020 Oberoi Complex, Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400053 Pan: Aaccn2854Q

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram (AR)For Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan (Sr. DR)

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 40ASection 40A(2)(b)

…ground of appeal of the assessee and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. We notice that in the present case, the appellant has made payment of employee’s contribution and other funds before the due date of filing return of income. In Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the amendment to section 43B by the Finance Act, 2003 applicable w.e.f. 01/04/2004 was retrospective in nature and would operate from 01/04/1988. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd. (supra) following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Alom Extrusions Ltd…

Asst CIT 10(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Neo Sports Broadcast P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2007-08,

ITA 1430/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram (AR)For Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan (Sr. DR)

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 40ASection 40A(2)(b)

DCIT, Cir-1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Electroteknica Switchgear Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (Ground No

ITA 1114/KOL/2015[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Sept 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1114/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. M/S Electroteknica Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata Switchgear Pvt. Ltd. 1/5B, Raja Basanta Roy Road, Kolkata-700026 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaace5368C (Assessee) .. (Respondent) Assesseeby :Shri Kalyan Nath,Acit Dr Respondent By :Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/09/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–1, Kolkata, In Appeal No.871/Cit(A)-1/C-1/2014-15, Dated 07.05.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 23.12.2010. 2.The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing The Liquidation Damages Of Rs.1,30,52,009/- As Liability Of Compensation Arising Out Of Delay. 2.On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing The Delayed Payment Of Employees Contribution To Pf/Esi As An Allowable Expense.

For Appellant: Shri Kalyan Nath,ACIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…24)(x). During the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that the PF/ESI amounts were deposited within the previous year relevant to the assessment year and were therefore allowable. The assessee relied on the decisions in CIT -vs- Alom Extrusions Ltd.319 ITR 306 and ACIT -vs- M/s.Vijay Shree Ltd. in ITA No.1091/Kol/2010 (Kol), wherein it was held that if the assessee deposits the PF/ESI amount within due date of filing of return of income, then there should not be any addition under section 36(1) (va) of the Act. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld CIT(A) held that the assessee had…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Helios & Matheson Information Technology Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for 10

ITA 3118/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3118/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Helios & Matheson Income Tax, Information Technology Ltd, No.605 & 605, 2Nd Floor, Corporate Circle 2(2) Chennai 600 034. Film Chamber Building, Anna Salai, Thousand Lights, Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aaace 0805A ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: None

Section 139(1)Section 14A

…at even employees contribution if remitted prior to due date of filing of return, would be allowable. We also find the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Limited 319 ITR 306. We do not find any ITA No. 3118/Mds/2016. :- 5 -: reason to interfere with the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Ground No.3 of the Revenue stands dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for 10. statistical purposes. Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 20th day of September, 2017, at Chennai…

ITO, Chennai vs. Peirce Leslie Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1112/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. B. Sagadevan, IRS, JCIT

Section 194JSection 37

…filing the return, though after the dates prescribed under the respective enactments of PF/ESI. In my opinion, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in following the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd, 319 ITR 306 and allowing the claim of the assessee. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Ground No.3 of the Revenue stands dismissed. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 10. Order pronounced on Monday, the 18th day of September, 2017,at Chennai. (अ"ाहम पी. जॉज") (ABRAHAM…

D.C.I.T Cir - 4, Kol, Kolkata vs. M/S Maud Tea & Seed Co Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1325/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Hon’Ble Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1325/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10 D.C.I.T., Cir-4, Kolkata .............................………………………….........................Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 M/S. Maud Tea & Seed Co. Ltd……………………………………………….........Respondent 2, N.C. Dutta Sarani, Sagar Estate, 5Th Floor, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aaccm0710C] Appearances By: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 04, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 13, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 4, Kolkata Dated 28.02.2013. 2. The Common Issue Involved In Ground No 1 To 3 Of This Appeal Relates To The Determination Of The Long Term Capital Gain From The Land Sold By The Assessee Company. 3. The Assessee In The Present Case Is A Company Which Is Engaged In The Business Of Growing, Manufacturing & Selling Of Tea. During The Year Under Consideration It Sold 132 Bighas Of Sewpur Tea Estate Land For A Consideration Of Rs. 9,07,20,000/- To Tinsukia Development Authority (As) Vide An Agreement Dated 18.08.2008. The Fair Market

Section 143(3)Section 55(3)

…011 in the case of CIT vs M/s. Vijay Shree Ltd. (ITA No. 245 of 2011) wherein a similar issue was decided by the Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in favour of the assessee by following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306. Respectfully following the said binding precedent, we uphold the impugned order of the Ld. CIT (A) giving relief to the assessee in this issue and dismiss ground no 5. 10 I.T.A. No. 1325/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009 -10 Maud Tea & Seed Co. Ltd. 9. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Lite-on Mobile India Pvt. Limited, Sriperambudur

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

ITA 3426/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3426/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 435

…India Pvt. Ltd. in Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.585 & 586 of 2015 dated 24.07.2015 wherein Para Nos.5 & 6 as held 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 435 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…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Best & Crompton Engineering Projects Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 212/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: None

Section 143(3)Section 43(6)Section 43B

…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. No. 212/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, M/s. Best & Crompton Engg Projects Corporate Circle -1(2), Vs. Ltd, Chennai – 600 034. No. 42 (Old No. 129) Sterling Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. [PAN: AABCB 5248H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri Pavuna Sundari, JCIT अपीलाथ% क&…

Sri.Azmath Ulla, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 144/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jun 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri C.R. Nulvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Biju, JCIT

Section 194A(1)Section 40

…5 of 9 quoted the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Virgin Creations (supra). The said decision refers to the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Allied Motors (P.) Ltd(supra) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Alom Extrusions Ltd, [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC). In the case of Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court was examining the first proviso to Section 43B and whether it was retrospective. Section 43B was inserted in the Act with effect from 1st April 1984 for curbing claims of taxpayers who did not discharge or pay statutory liabilities but claimed deductions on the ground that th…

ITO 22(3)(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Crescent Construction, Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 865/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…d the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Virgin Creations (supra). The said decision refers to the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Allied Motors (P) Limited (supra) and Commissioner of Income Tax versus Alom Extrusions Limited, (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC). In the case of Allied Motors (P) Limited (supra), the Supreme Court was examining the first proviso to Section 43B and whether it was retrospective. Section 43B was inserted in the Act with effect from 1st April 1984 for curbing claims of taxpayers who did not discharge or pay statutory liabilities but claimed deductions on the ground that…

Crescent Construction Co., Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 22(3), Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 658/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Express Retail Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 761/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…count before the due date of filing of return of income, then such an addition cannot be made. While come to this conclusion the Learned CIT(Appeals) has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 306. 11. After considering the finding of the Learned CIT(Appeals) that the payments have been made much before the due date filing of return of income, then we do not find any reason for making any disallowance as the same is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra). Thus, the second ground…

Orissa Air Products Pvt. Ltd., Dhenkanal vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 6/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year : 2012-2013

For Appellant: Shri T.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…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…

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Budge Budge Company Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2140/KOL/2014[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 May 2017AY 1999-2000

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 2140/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 1999-2000 D.C.I.T., Circle-1(1), -Vs.- M/S. Budge Budge Company Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcb 2410 K] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kailash Daluka, Fca For The Respondent : Shri R.Chowdhury, Jcit. Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kailash Daluka, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R.Chowdhury, JCIT. Sr.DR

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

…nt Corporation Ltd. Appeal No. 637 of 2013, in which it has been held that section 43B of the Income Tax Act 1961 is not applicable to employees' contribution to PF, after discussing decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusions reported in 319 ITR 306(SC). 3. The appellant craves leave to amend, modify or alter any grounds of appeal during the course of hearing of this case.” 3. The Assessee is a company engaged in the business of Trading and Manufacture of Jute. The Assessee as an employer withheld the provident fund contribution payable by its employees from their salaries payable, as their…

Sulphur Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, as above

ITA 107/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri K.S.Choksi &For Respondent: Ms. Beena Santosh

Section 10BSection 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.107/MUM/2013(AY. 2009-10) Sulphur Mills Ltd., 604/605, 349-Business Point, Western Highway Express, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 020 PAN: AABCS 8739K ..... Appellant Vs. The Addl. CIT, Range 8(3), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai -400 020 .... Respondent Appellant by : Shri K.S.Choksi & Smt.M.K.Patel Respondent by : Ms. Beena Santosh Date of hearing : 10/02/2017 Date of pronouncement : 05/05/2017 ORDER PER G.S.PANNU,A.M: The captioned appeals filed by the assessee…

Sulphur Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, as above

ITA 4631/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri K.S.Choksi &For Respondent: Ms. Beena Santosh

Section 10BSection 143(3)