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.

Fiduciary Shares & Stocks P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 321/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainfiduciary Shares & Stock P. Ltd. Acit, Circle 4(2) Unit No. T7B, 5Th Floor, Phoenix Àayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road House, Block No. 2, Phoenix Mills Vs. Mumbai 400020 Compound, 462, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai 400013 Pan - Aaacf9759N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri B.V. JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 73

…Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 is to be applied retrospectively from the date of the insertion to Explanation to section 73 of the Act. In coming to this view, we draw support from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (319 ITR 306) 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 12 Fiduciary Shares & Stock P. Ltd. welfare funds (viz. Provident Fund, etc.). The…

ITO 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Meta Copper & Alloys Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed”

ITA 3028/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaमेटा कॉपर अँड अँ"लोयस "ल"मटेड Income Tax Officer –3(2)(2), Vs R. No.473, Aayakar Bhavan, M/S Meta Copper & Alloys Ltd, M K Road, Mumbai -400 020 36-37, Mittal Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai -400 021 Pan: Aaacm 7357 B अपीलाथ" (Appellant) ""यथ" (Respondent) Appellant By "ीम"त राजे"वर" मोटवानी : Smt Rajeshwari Motwani Respondent By : कोई नह"ं None सुनवाईक"तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 03-05-2016 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-05-2016

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

…result, the ground of appeal is allowed”. 6. We find that, Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT VS Ghatge Patil Transporters Ltd., reported in [2014] 368 ITR 0749, after following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Alom Extrusion (319 ITR 306) held that if the employee’s contribution to the PF or ESIC fund has been made before the due date of filing of return under section 139(1), then same should be allowed as deduction under section 43B. Accordingly, following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, we affirm the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds raised by th…

ACIT 8(1), Mumbai vs. Celetronix India P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5433/MUM/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5433/Mum/2009 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2003-04) बनधम/ Celetronix India Pvt Ltd, Asstt. Commissioner Of Income C/O Jabil Circuit (I) Pvt.Ltd., Tax -8(1), Vs. Arena House, 3Rd Floor, Plot No.103, Room No.210, 2Nd Floor, Road No.12, Opp Tunga Paradise, Aayaker Bhavan, Marol, Midc, Andheri (E), M K Road, Mumbai-400093 Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aaact7548K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. Cross-Objection No.81/Mum/2010 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.5433/Mum/2009 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Celetronix India Pvt Ltd, बनधम/ Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax 8(1), Vs. Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Ms.Radha K NarangFor Respondent: S/Shri Sanjiv Shah, Shailesh

Section 10ASection 10A(9)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…nd General Finance Co. and Another V/s 7 CO No.81/M/2010 ACIT (257 ITR 338)(SC), K P Varghese Vis ITO (131 ITR 597) (SC), Allied Motors (P) Ltd Vis CIT (224 ITR 677)(SC), CIT V/s Podar Cement Pvt.Ltd and others (226 ITR 625)(SC), CIT V/s Alom Extrusions Ltd (319 ITR 306) (SC), Textile Machiner Corporation Ltd Vis CIT (107 ITR 195 (SC), CIT V/s Indian Aluminum Co.Ltd. (108 ITR 367) (SC) and ITO V/s DCM Soft (P) Ltd (115 TTJ 469) (Chennai Tribunal). 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the relevant material placed before us and also various case laws referred to by both the parties. In the case…

M/S. Strides Arcolab Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. ITO - 10(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s cross objection is partly allowed

ITA 641/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand

Section 115JSection 35

…lief to the assessee, relevant para of the Tribunal’s order is reproduced below: ―6. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [(2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC)] has held that the amendment to first proviso and the omission of the second proviso to section 43B by the Finance Act, 2003 is retrospective. In that view of the matter any amount referred to in section 43B, being the sum payable by the employer shall be allowed as deduction if it is paid before the due date of filing of the return. The Hon…

ACIT Cir 5(3), Mumbai vs. Shree Raj Travels & Tour Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 251/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla"ी राज "ावे"स अँड टूरस "ल"मटेड Acit, Circle 5(3), Vs Room No. 563, Shree Raj Travels & Tours Ltd, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Chowpaty View Building, Mumbai-400 020 Ground Floor, Sukh Nagar, S V P Road, Opera House, Mumbai -400 007 Pan: Aaecs 9760 N अपीलाथ" (Appellant) ""यथ" (Respondent) Appellant By Shri A K Nayak : Respondent By : None सुनवाईक"तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2016 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13-04-2016

For Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(va)Section 2(24)(x)Section 43

…nable in the light of various Tribunal as well as High Court decisions cited in the preceding paras. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Limited [2010] 321 ITR 508 (Del) and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusion Limited 319 ITR 306(SC) and CIT vs Vinay Cements 213 CTR 268 (SC) have held that such disallowances are not maintainable. Under the circumstances, ground of appeal no.2 is allowed”. 4 "ी राज "ावे"स अँड टूरस "ल"मटेड Shree Raj Travels and Tours Ltd ITA 251/M/2013 4. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, therefore, we are proceeding to de…

M/S New Alignment, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-51(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 504/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Chowdhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 139Section 192Section 194CSection 201Section 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…

The Commissioner of income Tax-II vs. M/s.Ideal Industrial Explosives Ltd

ITTA/100/2010HC Telangana01 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Commissioner of Income vs. Sri Scorpio Engineering

ITA/551/2015HC Karnataka29 Feb 2016

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 139Section 260Section 40

…R Chaudhary in Tax Appeal Nos.412/2013 and connected matter, which came to be decided on 22.11.2013, after referring to the judgments of Alide Motors (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in AIR 1997 SC 1361 and CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Limited reported in (2009) 319 ITR 306, has held as under: “15.4:Thus, considering relevant legislative changes made by the Parliament from time to time and. some of the decisions relevant to consider the question of retrospectivity raised in these present appeals, the focal question, therefore, would be whether the amendment brought about by way of Finance Act…

Central Electronics Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 207/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Ddit, Circle-3(1), 3Rd Floor, C.R. Central Electronics Ltd., 4, Vs. Industrial Area, Sahibabad, Uttar Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi Pradesh. (Pan:Aaacc1262G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 42Section 43BSection 9(1)(vii)

…g Officer disallowed the amount of Rs. 60,348/-. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) also upheld the disallowance. 4.1 Before us, learned Authorized Representative submitted that in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusion, [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC), it is held that even sums paid beyond the previous year, but before the due date of filing of return, the deduction shall be allowed to the assessee. He further submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the deletion of second proviso to Section 43B, and the amendment to first proviso by the Finance Act, 2003, was to overcome implement…

Integrated Technologies Solutions P.Latd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

ITA 3803/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2005-06 Dcit, Cir. 6(1), M/S. Integrated Technology R.No.506, 5Th Floor, Solutions P. Ltd., Nirlon House, 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M.K. Road, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400 025 Pan: Aaaci 1867B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Integrated Technology Assistant Commissioner Of Solutions P. Ltd., Income Tax, Nirlon House, 3Rd Floor, Circle 6(1), Vs. Dr. A.B. Road, Mumbai Worli, Mumbai – 400 025 Pan: Aaaci 1867B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Haresh Buch, A.R. & Ms. Monika Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. Yadagiri, D.R

Section 68

…ion 36(va) of the Income Tax Act. Both the Ld. Representatives of the parties have fairly agreed that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd.” reported in (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) 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 relation to a…

ACIT 6(1), Mumbai vs. Integrated Technology Solutions P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3325/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Haresh Buch, A.R. & Ms. Monika Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. Yadagiri, D.R

Section 68

Automotive Coaches & Components Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1789/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1789/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Automotive Coaches & The Deputy Commissioner Of Components Ltd., V. Income Tax, C1 & D6 Sipcot Industrial Company Circle – I, Complex, Chennai - 600 034. Gummidipoondi – 601 201. Pan : Aaaca 3150 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT

Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)

…32(1) of the Act. by providing a proviso to allow the additional depreciation on the plant and machinery used for less than 180 days in the succeeding assessment year. By placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306, the Ld.counsel submitted that amendment was made in the Income-tax Act in order to remove the discrepancy in the matter of allowing additional depreciation. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, the amendment is applicable retrospectively during the year under consideration also. The Ld.counsel has also placed his reliance 4 I.T.A. No.178…

Shri Dilip Kumar Roy, Nadia vs. ITO, WD-1, Nadia

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 615/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No. 615/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Dilip Kumar Roy -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-1, Nadia Nadia. [Pan : Acwpr 7333R) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Miss Varsha Jalan, Advocate For The Respondent : David Z. Chawngthu, Affl.Cit

For Appellant: Miss Varsha Jalan, AdvocateFor Respondent: David Z. Chawngthu, Affl.CIT

Section 192Section 194Section 194CSection 201Section 40

Limtex Tea & Industries Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-4, Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 854/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Thard, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 43(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “B”, KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM] Assessment Year : 2006-07 Limtex Tea & Industries Ltd. -versus- Asstt. C.I.T., Circle-4 Kolkata Kolkata (PAN:AAACL 5207 H) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) For the Appellant : Shri J.M.Thard, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, JCIT, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 18.12.2015. Date of Pronouncement : 15.1.2016. ORDER Per Shri N.V.Vasudevan, JM This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 10.1.2014 of CIT(A)- IV, Kolkata, relating to AY 2006-07. 2. The Assessee is a company…

Shri. Parasmal Dhanraj, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 357/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavanassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri K. Kiran Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 40

…d by the tax payers and is clarificatory in nature. The provision is not intended for punitive action on non-compliance and should be treated as with retrospective effect. Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [(2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC). 28. The CIT(Appeals) has at page 11 to 14 of the impugned order discussed the issue of disallowance of interest u/s. 40(a)(ia) in respect of interest payments in the case of Parasmal (HUF), Smt. Lalitha Devi Parasmal, Sri Amit Kumar and Smt. Posi Bai and the CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance of interest and enhancement of income of Rs…

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Cerner Healthcare Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 675/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri Chavali S. Narayan, CA

Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 80H

…re Solutions Pvt.Ltd. Page 17 of 18 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) r…

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

The appeal of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 8846/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. K.S. Chokshi & Ms. M.R. Patel - ARsFor Respondent: Sh. Aarsi Prasad-DR

Section 10Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 40

…enhanced income due to disallowance of employers as well as employees contribution towards PF/ESIC, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has held in para-12 as under :- “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…

Vinyroyal Plasicoates P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1240/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta Nos.1240 & 1243/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years:2008-09 & 2009-10 बनाम/ M/S. Vinyroyal The Ito 9(3)-3, Plasticoates Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Plot No. 60Cd, Mumbai-400 020 Shlok Bldg., 1St Floor, Govt. Ind. Est, Charkop, Kandivli (W), Mumbai-400 067 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacv 4165E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Mayur A. Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Pawan Kumar Beerla सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :08.12.2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12 .2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per N.K. Billaiya, Am: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Preferred Against Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-20, Mumbai Dated 17.12.2012 & 27.12.2012 Pertaining To Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10. Both These Appeals Have Common Grievance By The Assessee Therefore They Were Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Mayur A. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Kumar

Section 36(1)(iii)

…ion of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd in Income Tax Appeal No. 399 of 2012 wherein the Hon’ble High Court has followed the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Alom Extrusions Ltd 319 ITR 306. It is the say of the Ld. Counsel that the facts the EPF have been deposited before filing the return of income was brought to the notice of the AO by way of a revised computation of income but the same was not accepted for want of revised return of income. The Ld. Counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case o…

Prb Marketing Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 663/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Prb Marketing Pvt. Ltd., #192/12-2, 1St ‘C’ Cross, Revenue Layout, 5Th Block, Bsk 3Rd Stage, Bangalore-560085. … Appellant Pan:Aaecp 5655 M Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 12(1), Bangalore. … Respondent Appellant By: Shri S.Venkatesan, Ca. Respondent By: Shri Naresh Saka, Addl.Cit(Dr).

For Appellant: Shri S.Venkatesan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Naresh Saka, Addl.CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 234Section 40

M/S Mitra Guha Builders (India) Co., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-33, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1557/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2015AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm] Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Thard, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amitav Bhattacharjee, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 139Section 192Section 201Section 40