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-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Eyeglobal Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 2844/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Dcit – 14(1)(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S.Eyeglobal Technologies Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Mafatlal House, Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai - 400020 Pan/Gir No. Aaace9595R Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

…ombay High Court has held as under:- 8. The section referred to above viz. section 438 and the amendments thereto came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Alom Extrusions Ltd., reported in (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) when the Supreme Court inter alia held that the amendments to the said section brought about by the Finance Act, 2003 with effect from 1st April 2004 were retrospective in nature and would vrd 7 ITXA399112 operate from 1st April 1988. The ITAT, relying upon the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, has dismissed the Revenue's Appeal and c…

Addl CIT RG 4(2), Mumbai vs. Mit Chatson P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue are hereby Dismissed

ITA 7093/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.7093/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Addl. Cit 4(2) बनाम/ M/S. Mit Chatson Pvt. Ltd. Room No.642, 6Th Floor, 5/32, 2Nd Panjarapole Lane, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, C.P.Tank, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm3687N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""थ" /Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram (SeniorFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…as been objected by the appellant. There is no dispute that the payment has been made before filing of return of income and therefore, the same is allowable. This issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusion Ltd. 319 ITR 306 and by the decision of Hon’ble ITAT in the case of M/s.Pikpen Pvt. Ltd. Vs.ITO in ITA No.6847/Mum/2008 and other cases as relied upon by the assessee. Hence, the addition is deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed.” 13. The CIT(A) has arrived at this conclusion that the assessee made the payment before filing the return of income and was of t…

Laxmi Narayan Yadava, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4973/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal

For Appellant: Shri Satish Kumar Dhingra, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, DR

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

…han through the return of income. 11. On merits, I find that the question of deletion of disallowance under such circumstances as are instantly prevailing is no more res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Limited [(2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC)] has held that the amendment to first proviso and omission of the second proviso to section 43B by the Finance Act, 2003 is retrospective. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Aimil Limited [(2010) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi)] has allowed deduction in respect of employees’ share when the amount was paid before the due date. When I con…

Acterna India (P) Ltd vs. ITO Ward-1 (1)

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

ITA 493/DEL/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2016AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri K.N. Chary, Jm Assessment Year : 2002-03 Viavi Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, (Formerly Acterna India Private Ward-1(1), Lijmited) New Delhi. 25/38, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi – 110 008. Pan : Aaacw0654M

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, DR

Section 139(1)Section 43B

…, 2002 was deposited on 22/26.4.2002 as against the due date of 20.04.2002. We find that the question of deletion of disallowance under such circumstances is no more res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Limited [(2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC)] has held that the amendment to first proviso and omission of the second proviso to section 43B by the Finance Act, 2003 is retrospective. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Aimil Limited [(2010) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi)] has allowed deduction in respect of employees’ share when the amount was paid before ITA No.493/Del/2006 5…

Reliance Lifestyle Holdings Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6797/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…n the account so as to be entitled to deduction of an amount, which is paid during the year. The issue of deduction on actual payment has been held to be proper in the case of CIT v. Vinay Cement Ltd. (2007) 213 CTR 268 (SC); CfT v. Alom Extrusion Ltd. (2010) 1 SCC 489(SC); CIT v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 729 (SC), Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT (2004) ~66 ITR 99 (SC) and CIT v. Udaipur Distilleries Co. Ltd. (2009) 314 ITR 188 (SC). In view of the above, the disallowance of Rs. 36,40,709/ - made by the AO” 10. The ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued before us that the ld. CIT(A) has grossly er…

DCIT 10(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jord Engineers India Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 723/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.723/M/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Dy. Cit-10(2)(1), M/S. Jord Engineers India R.No.216-A, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 504, Vishwananak, बनाम/Vs. M.K. Road, Chakala, बनाम बनाम बनाम Mumbai – 400 020 Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 099 Pan: Aaacj2871P (अपीलाथ% अपीलाथ%/Appellant) ("&यथ% "&यथ%/Respondent) अपीलाथ% अपीलाथ% "&यथ% "&यथ% Present For: Assessee By : Shri Ravikanth Pathak, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Alok Johri, D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Ravikanth Pathak, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri, D.R

…eyond the prescribed due dates. 2 M/s. Jord Engineers India Ltd. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submits that the issue in appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [319 ITR 306]. He also submits that this issue is covered by even the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. in IT Appeal No.399 of 2012 wherein it was held that Employees’ Contribution to Provident Fund paid before the due date for filing of return of income shall be allowed as deductable revenue expense. He also fu…

ITO 21(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Asha K Ringshia, Mumbai

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

ITA 5459/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Ito – 21(1)(1) – Mumbai Vs. Ms. Asha K Ringshia Pandurang Sadan, Hanuman Road, Vile Parle East, Mumbai – 400 057 Pan/Gir No. Aacpr3758C Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80Section 80ISection 80l

…s under the approved scheme of the State or Central Govt., the same should be treated as retrospective. In support of this pleading of retrospective effect is such situation, he relied on two Supreme Court judgments namely CfT vis Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009], 319 ITR 306 (SC) and Allied Motors Pvt. Ltd. vis CIT, [1997] 224 ITR 677 (SC). 11. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and have perused the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the material available on record. The assessee has undertaken a project under the scheme of Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) framed by the Govt.…

ITO 21(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Asha K Ringshia, Mumbai

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

ITA 5458/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2016AY 2005-06

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80Section 80ISection 80l

DCIT OSD 1(1), Mumbai vs. The Saraswat Co-Op Bank P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result all the six appeals i

ITA 8622/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 8622/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) The Deputy Commissioner Of The Saraswat Co-Operative बनाम/ Income Tax(Osd),1(1) Bank Limited V. Room No. 540/564, 5 T H Floor Madhushree, Plot No. 85 Aayakar Bhawan, M K Road District Navi Mumbai- New Marine Lines 400 703 Mumbai-400020 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact5543L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 14A

…no more res-integra and is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Cit v. Ghatge Patil Transports Limited (2014) 368 ITR 749(Bom.) and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Limited (2009) 319 ITR 306(SC) and hence the issue is decided in favour of the assessee and no disallowance u/s 43B of the Act r.w.s. 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va) of the Act is warranted in the instant case in view of the afore-stated decisions, as the assessee in the instant case paid the employees contribution towards PF within grace period as allowed by PF statute and in any…

ACIT, Tambaram vs. Jahan Leather Exports, Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1964/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2016AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri A.S.Sriraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCIT

Section 40

…Vs. 8 I.T.A. No.1962, 1963 & 1964/Mds/2016 & C.O.No.121/Mds/2016 M/s.Industrial Security & Intelligence India Pvt.Ltd. (supra). The Madras High Court after relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 306 and also the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amil Ltd. reported in 321 ITR 508 found that in case the assessee deposited the employees contribution towards provident fund and ESI after the due date prescribed under the relevant act but before the due date of filing of return of income under Income Tax Act, no disallowance c…

ACIT, Tambaram vs. Jahan Leather Exports, Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1963/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri A.S.Sriraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCIT

Section 40

ACIT, Tambaram vs. Jahan Leather Exports, Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1962/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri A.S.Sriraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCIT

Section 40

M/S. Hooghly Mills Projects Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - VII, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 549/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narsimha Charyassessment Years:2006-07

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 43B

…tion has become infructuous and the same is disposed of accordingly.” We also find that Ld. CIT(A) in assessee’s own case in AY 2007-08 has also deleted the addition made by Assessing Officer having reliance in the case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC). We also rely in assessee’s own case for AY 2005-06 in ITA No.913/Kol/2010 dated 24.09.2010 where the issue was decided in favour of assessee and relevant extract of the order is reproduced below:- “10. We observe that the AO on similar facts and considering the order of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court dated 24.03.2004, a copy placed on record,…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…A No. 1609/Del/2016 and 914/Del/2016 (AY 2011-12) Page 103 of 484 remedy to make the provision workable, it is required to be considered to be applicable retrospectively. [Refer: Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT: 224 ITR 677 (SC); CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd: 319 ITR 306 (SC)] n) Reference at this juncture may also be made to the amendment to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act vide Finance Act, 2010, w.e.f. 01.04.2010 by way of insertion of the first proviso thereto, which provided relaxation from disallowance under the said section, where the assessee had deducted tax at source on payments made in conformity with Cha…

M/S. Bharti Airtel Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground No

ITA 5816/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, SrFor Respondent: Sh. NC Swain, CIT DR (OSD)

Section 201Section 254Section 40

…intended consequences which may cause undue hardship to the assessees and which made the provision unworkable or unjust in a specific situation. h) To the same effect is the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd: 319 ITR 306 wherein, too, the apex Court, while following the aforesaid decision of Allied Motors (supra), held that the deletion of second proviso to section 43B was curative in nature and, hence, retrospective and would operate with effect from 01.04.1988, when the first proviso came to be inserted. i) Reference at this juncture may also be made to the am…

ITO, Ward - 1(3), Kolkata vs. M/S. Atn International Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1531/KOL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Kr. Kureel, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 73

…inion, the amendment would not serve its object in the instant case unless it is construed retrospective in operation. 3.7.3. We also draw support from the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in this regard :- CIT vs Alom Extrusions Ltd reported in 319 ITR 306 (SC) Allied Motors Pvt Ltd vs CIT reported in 224 ITR 677 (SC) CIT vs J.H.Gotla reported in (1985) 156 ITR 323 (SC) at page 339 and 340 3.7.4. We also find that similar view has been taken by the co-ordinate benches of Ahmedabad , Mumbai and this Tribunal supra as rightly pointed out by the ld AR. Respectfully following the judicial precedents r…

DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Roamware (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue and CO by the assessee both are

ITA 1951/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma(Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri. Paras SarlaFor Respondent: Shri. Randhir Gupta

Section 10ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 148

…nsequence 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 teh 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 Sectn 36(v) rea…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. W.S.Industries (India) Limited, Chennai

ITA 966/CHNY/2005[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43B

…idictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Industrial Security & Intelligence India Pvt. Ltd 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 ITA No.966 & 1840/Mds/2005 :- 5 -: 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.…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. S.S.B.Industries Limited Now Amalgamated With M/S.W.S.Industries (India) Limited, Chennai

ITA 1840/CHNY/2005[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43B

Punjab Goods Transport Private Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-12(3), Kolkata

ITA 629/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No.629/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Punjab Goods Transport Pvt.Ltd. -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-12(3), Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Aadcp 2302 E) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Amitabh Bhattacharya, Jcit

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amitabh Bhattacharya, JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 192Section 194HSection 201Section 250Section 40

…e said to be declaratory and curative in nature and therefore, should be given retrospective effect from 1st April, 2005, being the date from which sub-clause (ia) of section 40(a) was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004. In CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had to deal with the question, whether omission (deletion) of the second proviso to s. 43B of the IT Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2003, operated w.e.f. 1st April, 2004, or whether it operated retrospectively w.e.f. 1st April, 1988? Prior to Finance Act, 2003, the second proviso to s. 43B of the IT Act, 1961 (for…