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.

DCIT, Chennai vs. R P Telebuy Skyshop Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 269/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.268 & 269/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Rp Telebuy Skyshop Pvt. Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Tower A, 2Nd Main Road, Income Tax, V. Corporate Circle – 5(2), Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 058. Pan : Aadcr 4633 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCITFor Respondent: Sh. B. Ramakrishnan, CA

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…e date provided under Provident Fund Act. The Madras High Court in Industrial Security & Intelligence India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) examined 4 I.T.A. Nos.268 & 269/Mds/17 this issue and after referring to the judgment of Apex Court in CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (319 ITR 306) and Delhi High Court in CIT v. Amil Ltd. (321 ITR 508), found that deposit of employees’ contribution after the due date prescribed under relevant Act but before the date of filing of return of income under the Income-tax Act, cannot be disallowed. In view of the judgment of Madras High Court in Industrial Security & Intelligence India Pvt. Ltd.…

DCIT, Chennai vs. R P Telebuy Skyshop Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 268/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCITFor Respondent: Sh. B. Ramakrishnan, CA

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)

ACIT, Circle-10(2), Kolkat, Kolkata vs. M/S. Stewart & Mackertich Wealth Management Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the assessee`s ground No

ITA 1858/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Choudhary, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 73

…n our considered opinion, the amendment would not serve its object in the instant case unless it is construed retrospective in operation. 6.4.4. We draw support from the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Alom Extrusions Ltd reported in 319 ITR 306 (SC) 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 a…

Stewart and Mackertich Wealth Management Ltd., Kolkata vs. The DCIT, Circle-10, Kolkata

In the result, the assessee`s ground No

ITA 1820/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Choudhary, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 73

A.W. Faber Castell (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1037/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Mr. M.P. LohiaFor Respondent: Mrs. Malathi Sridharan CIT(DR)

Section 144CSection 36(1)

…ssessee before due date of filing of return of income for the year under consideration. He, therefore, has stated that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “CIT” vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd.” reported in (2009) 319 ITR 306 (Supreme Court) Wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter alia has held that the amendment to section 43B vide Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f. 01.04.2004, whereby, the second proviso to section 43B has been deleted and further amendment to 1st proviso has been made, whereby, it has been provided that nothing contained in the said section shall apply in re…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Extreme Networks India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

Accordingly, we find no question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in these appeals. Accordingly, both the Tax Case (Appeals) stand dismissed

ITA 434/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A .No.434/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri. T.N. Seetharaman, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT

Section 144CSection 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(5)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)

…al Security & Intelligence India Pvt. Ltd (supra) had held at para 5 & 6 of its judgment dated 24.07.2015 as under. ‘’5. We find that the Tribunal has righty relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd, reported in 319 ITR 306, whereby ITA No.434 & 449/Mds/2015 :- 10 -: 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 01.01.1988 i.e the date of insertion of first proviso. The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs.…

ITO 4(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Sunvin Industries P.Ltd, Thane

ITA 2309/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C. N. Prasadआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./2309/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year:2010-11 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Income Tax Officer M/S. Sunvin Industries Pvt.Ltd. Room No.637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Nadinaka, Mithpada, Behind Sainik Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Hospital Parol Rd. Bhiwandi, Thane-421 302. Pan:Aaecs 3087 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Ms. Arju Goradia-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Ms. Usha Gopalan सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/03/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 05.04.2017 लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 13/02/2015 Of Cit(A)-9,Mumbai, The Assessing Officer (Ao)Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Textiles & Handloom,Filed Its Return Of Income On 27/09/2010,Declaring Total Income Of Rs.Nil.The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S. 143(3) On 13.3.2013,Determining Its Income At Rs.90.88 Lakhs.

For Appellant: Ms. Usha GopalanFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Goradia-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई मुंबई “जेजेजेजे” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ म"म"म"म" आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“J”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं सी सी. एन एन. "साद "साद, "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं सी सी एन एन "साद "साद "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and C. N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./2309/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year:2010-11 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Income ta…

Extreme Networks India Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

Accordingly, we find no question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in these appeals. Accordingly, both the Tax Case (Appeals) stand dismissed

ITA 449/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A .No.434/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri. T.N. Seetharaman, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT

Section 144CSection 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(5)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)

DCIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Lml Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4396/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No.4396/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dcit 3(2) Lml Ltd. बिधम/ R. Nho, 674 6Th Floor, Aayakar 714, Raheja Chambers, Bhavan, M.K. Rd. Mumbai Nariman Point Vs. 400020 Mumbai 400021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacl0141N (अऩीराथी/Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri M.C. OmiFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Nahta

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

…rovisions of Section 43B, no disallowance was called for in its hands. The assessee in support of its aforesaid contention relied on the following judicial pronouncements- (i) Allied Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 224 ITR 677 (SC). (ii) Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC). (iii) Aimil Ltd. Vs. CIT 321 ITR 508 (Del). The CIT(A) finding favor with the aforesaid contention of the assessee ,therein observed that as the assessee had deposited the aforesaid amounts before the ‘due date’ of filing of itsreturn of income u/s 139(1), therefore, no disallowance under Sec. 43B was called for in its hands. The CIT(A) ho…

M/S. Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai

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

ITA 7283/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 801A(4)Section 80I

…and to make a section workable has in certain circumstances been regarded as retrospective particularly when it was intended to remedy unintended consequences. Allied Motors P. Limited Vs. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677 (SC) and CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Limited [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC). The Tribunal having only followed these provisions, we do not find any just reason to interfere in our appellate jurisdiction. 24. Another submission which was urged on behalf of the Revenue is that under clause (iii) of sub-section (4A) of section 80-IA, one of the conditions imposed was that the enterprise must start operating and mainta…

M/S. Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai

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

ITA 7282/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2017AY 2003-2004

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 801A(4)Section 80I

ITO, Chennai vs. M/S. Cargoplan International (India) Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 3140/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Mr.G.Seetharaman, CA

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 40Section 5(2)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 9(2)

…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 "ी "ड.एस. सु"दर "संह, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S.SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.3140/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vs. The Income Tax Officer, M/s.Cargoplan International Corporate Ward-1(3), (India) Pvt. Ltd., Chennai-600 034. No.113 & 114, Mena Kampala Arcade, Sir Theagaraya Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. [PAN: AACCC 5083 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, JCIT…

ACIT, CC-Xx, Kolkata vs. M/S. Paharpur Cooling Towers Limited, Kolkata

In the result, this ground is allowed

ITA 1370/KOL/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Navin Verma & Nitin Agarwal, ARs

Section 143(3)

…43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and thus, the issues stand covered in favour of the assessee. It is to be noted that the jurisdictional court while passing the judgement in CIT vs Vijay Shree (supra) had followed the judgement in CIT vs Alom Extrusions Ltd : 319 ITR 306 (SC) wherein it was held that amendment to the second proviso to section 43B of the act as introduced by Finance Act, 2003 was curative in nature and is required to be applied retrospectively with effect from 1st April, 1988. Mr.Khaitan submits save and except the judgement in CIT vs Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation : 223 Taxman 398 (Guj)…

I.T.O WD - 8(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Ruia Sons Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 365/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm] I.T.A No. 365/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-8(3), -Vs.- M/S. Ruia Sons Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccr 3949 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, Cit For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, CITFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194JSection 301Section 40

…Finance Act 2010. As per the amended provision if the TDS amount is deposited before due date of filing of return then no disallowance can be made under section 40(a)(ia). (iii) It has been held by Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Alom Extrusions Ltd.(2209) 319 ITR 306 that the amendment made in the section 43B is not prospective but is explanatory and will accordingly apply retrospectively. Similarly view has been taken by Kolkata High Court in the case CIT v Virgin Creations in ITAT no.302 of 20 11. 18 19 M/s.Ruia Sons Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr.2009-10 (iv) In view of above discussed legal and factual position the furt…

Ray Engineering Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 2638/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Ram Lal Negim/S. Ray Engineering Ltd. Dy. C.I.T. 15(3)(1) Plot No. 2, Ray Compound Room No. 451, 4Th Floor Vs. Post Iit Market, Powai Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400076 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aadcr3859C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ashok J. PatilFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 43B

…nd fee on the one hand and contribution to EPF, superannuation fund and other welfare funds on the other. In coming to this finding the Hon'ble Bombay High Court applied the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC). 3.4.2 On similar facts as in the case on hand, we find that this issue of the assessee’s claim for deduction of contribution to EPF under section 43B of the Act is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. (supra) wherein at paras 5 to 9 of its order, while dis…

Asst CIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Credit Susse Business Analytics (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2011-2012

ITA 1900/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri. Premchand J (DR)For Respondent: Shri. Farrokh V. Irani (AR)

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40

…ored in calculating the profits eligible for deduction on the ground that these receipts were not generated out of the manufacturing activity of the assessee-company. 12. By reason of the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Alom Extrusions Limited [2009] 319 ITR 306 the employer's contribution was liable to be allowed, since it was deposited by the due date for the filing of the return. The peculiar position, however, as it obtains in the present case arises out of the fact that the disallowance which was effected by the Assessing Officer has not, the court is informed, been challenged by the assessee. As a…

Sushila Devi Jaiswal, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-48, Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse on ground No

ITA 2064/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2064/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-09) Sushila Devi Jaiswal, Vs. Dcit, Circle-48, C/O D J Shah & Co., Kolkata Kalyan Bhavan, 2 Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Acwpj 6786 G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Miraj D Shah, Advocate Revenue By : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 22/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-14, Kolkata In Appeal No.223/Cit(A)-Xxx/Cir-487/2010-11, Dated 03.07.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 27.12.2010. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2008-09 On 29.09.2008 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.16,70,339/- & The Same Was Processed U/S.143(1) Of The Act On 23.03.2009. Later On Assessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S.143(3) Of The Act & The Ao Has Completed The Assessment By Making The Disallowance U/S.40(A)(Ia) Of The Act At Rs.5,65,097/- & Disallowance Of Other Charges Rs.40,060/-. 3. Aggrieved From The Order Of Assessing Officer, The Assessee Filed

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: None

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 192CSection 194CSection 40

…ar under consideration. This factual position was undisputed. It was held that in view of the authoritative pronouncement of SC in case of Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677/ 91Taxman 205 and also in the case CIT v. Alom Extrusions' Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306/ 185Taxman416 (SC) section 40(a)(ia) had to be given retrospective application. Similar view was held by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of ITO Vs Anil Kumar & Co. 31 Taxmann.com .370 (2013) and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs Ashok J Patel (2014) 43 Taxmann.com 227 dated 02/12/2013.” In addition, it was contende…

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Hidesign India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 2496/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 2496/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Hidesign India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(2) , Vs. Old. No. 57/4, New No. 2, Anugraha Room No. 512, 5Th Floor, Wanaparthy Apartments, 1St Street, Kamarajar Block, 121, M.G. Road, Avenue, Adyar, Chennai 600 020. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aacch0586R] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: None

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘‘ए’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य के सम" Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member & Shri S. Jayaraman, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 2496/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Hidesign India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(2) , Vs. Old. No. 57/4, New No. 2, Anugraha Room No. 512, 5th Floor, Wanaparthy Apartments, 1st Street, Kamarajar Block, 121, M.G. Road, Avenue, Adyar, Chennai 600 020. Chennai 600 034. [PAN:AACCH0586R] (…

Mr. Saurabh Dadu, Noida vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5572/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…ored in calculating the profits eligible for deduction on the ground that these receipts were not generated out of the manufacturing activity of the assessee- company. 12. By reason of the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306 the employer's contribution was liable to be allowed, since it was deposited by the due date for the filing of the return. The peculiar position, however, as it obtains in the present case arises out of the fact that the disallowance which was effected by the Assessing Officer has not, the Court is informed, been challenged by the assessee. As a…

Goldgerg Finance Pvt. Ltd., Thane vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Thane

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

ITA 7496/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7496/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran

Section 10Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 67Section 67ASection 80HSection 80ISection 86

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