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.

Allahabad Bank, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 6, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2967/KOL/2003[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2015AY 2000-01

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Ghosh, FCA & Sjhri Piyush Dey, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)

Section 29Section 30Section 37

…s 139(1) of the Act. He drew our attention to the proviso to section 43B of the Act inserted by the Finance Act, 2003. He submitted that the aforesaid amendment has been held retrospective by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Alom Extrusions Ltd 319 ITR 306 (SC). It was submitted by him that since the contribution of Provident Fund have been paid on or before filing of the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act for A.Y.2000-01 the assessee should be allowed the benefit of deduction. We have considered the rival submissions. We are of the view that addition 14. sustained deserves to be deleted. The…

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

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4082/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year- 2009-10 The Acit 21(1), Room No. Asha K. Ringshia, 601, 6Th Floor, C-10 3Rd Floor, Pandurang Sadan, बनाम/ Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Hanuman Road, Mumbai- 57 Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai- 51 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aacpr3758C

Section 80Section 80I

…d scheme of the State or 9 Asha K. Ringshia 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 CIT v/s Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009], 319 ITR 306 (SC) and Allied Motors Pvt. Ltd. v/s 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 Gov…

Ici India Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-10, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 850/KOL/2007[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri Mahavir Singh, Judicial Member and Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member ITA No.850 & 1021/Kol/2007 Assessment Year :1996-97 ICI India Ltd. V/s. DCIT, Circle-10, 3 8B Middleton Street, Govt. Place (West), Kolkata – 700 071 Kolkata [PAN No.AAACI 6297 A] DCIT, Circle-10, 3 Govt. M/s ICI (India) Ltd. 34, Place (West) Kolkata V/s. Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-71 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ITA No. 2048 & 2355/Kol/2005 Assessment Year: 1996-97 ICI India Ltd. V/s. DCIT, Circle-10, Ayakar 34, Chowringhee Road, , Bhavan, P-7, Kolkata…

DCIT, Cir-10, Kolkata vs. M/S Ici India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1021/KOL/2007[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)

ACIT, Cir-10, Kolkata vs. M/S Ici India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2355/KOL/2005[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)

Carver Technology & Equipments P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1229/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year- 2010-11 M/S Carver Technology & Dcit, Equipment Pvt. Ltd. Range-3(1), बनाम/ C/O- Kalyaniwalla & Mistry, Room No.604, Vs. Army & Navy Building, 3Rd 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Floor, 14, M.G. Road, Fort, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aadcc2809H "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Amey Wagle Shri Arvind Kumar-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18/11/2015 23/11/2015 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: आदेश / O R D E R

Section 43B

…ional High Court in the case of Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. (supra), we find force in the contention of the assessee. It is also noted that while coming to the conclusion, the Hon’ble High Court followed the decision in CIT vs Alom Exclusion Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC). Respectfully, following the aforesaid decisions, we allow the appeal of the assessee. Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. This Order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of ld. representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 18/11/2015. (Ashwani Taneja) (Joginder Singh) लेखा सद"य / ACCOUNTANT ME…

D.C.I.T Cir - 11, Kolkata. vs. M/S B.S.Sea Foods Pvt Ltd, North 24 Parganas

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 817/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri N.V.Vasudevanassessment Year:2009-10 बनाम Dcit, Circle-11, P-7, M/S B.S.Sea Foods Pvt. / Chowringhee Squre, Ltd. 17, Jessore Road V/S. Kolkata – 700 069 North, Udayraipur Madhyamgram, Barasat, 24 Parganas (N) 700 129 [Pan No.Aabcb 1898 B]

Section 143(3)Section 40

…0 w.e.f. 01.04.2010, which is applicable retrospectively. For this conclusion, Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Allied Motors Pvt. Ltd., 224 ITR 677 (SC) and in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd.,. 319 ITR 306 (SC). Respectfully following the said decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the decision of Hon'ble ITA No.817/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 DCIT Cir-11,Kol. V. M/s B.S. Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. Page 3 jurisdictional High Court in the case of Virgin Creations (supra), we uphold the impugned order of CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.10 lakh made by…

Addl CIT RG 1(3), Mumbai vs. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 3843/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shukla

For Respondent: Smt. S. Padmaja

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 801A

…made before the due date of filling of return of income, the they are to be allowed u/s 43B. While arriving to this proposition the Hon’ble court has followed the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Alom Extrusions Ltd, reported in [2009] 319 ITR 306 and also relied upon its own decision in the case of CIT vs Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd., judgment and order dated 11.07.2014 passed in ITA 399 of 2012. 17. On the other hand, Ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the CIT(A) and also the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Gujarat Road Transport Corp., (reported in [2014]…

The West Coast Paper Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2993/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shukla

For Respondent: Smt. S. Padmaja

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 801A

Addl. CIT, Bulandshahr vs. M/S. Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh, Uttar Pradesh

In the result we uphold the order of CIT(A) deleting the penalty of Rs

ITA 5910/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. A.T.Varky, Jm & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am Assessment Year: 2007-08

Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…a High Court in CIT V Merchem Limited have decided against the assessee holding that employees contribution not deposited within the due dates prescribed under the respective P F laws is not allowable, whereas honourable Delhi high court in case of AIMIL Ltd. 319 ITR 306., Honourable Rajasthan HC in State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and Honourable Karnataka HC in Essae Teraoka (P) Ltd. & Spectrum Consultants India P. Ltd. have decided the issue in favour of the assessee. This itself shows that issue is highly debateable. Honourable Supreme Court in case of CIT V. Vegetable Products 88 ITR 192 has held that 3 Dugdh…

Furniture Concepts (I) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3706/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year 2007-08 M/S Furniture Concepts (I) Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax, बनाम/ 1St Floor, Vikas Center, S.V. Range-9(1), Room No.223, Vs. Road, Santacruz (West), 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400054 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aabcc1243K "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Ms. Lata Sunder M.S. Matnuria-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 08/10/2015 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 13/10/2015 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 44A

…der, material available on record, assertions made by the ld. respective counsel, if kept in juxtaposition and analyzed, and without going into much deliberation, we find that the ratio laid down by the Hon’bel Apex Court in CIT vs Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306, when a proviso in a section is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the section workable, the proviso which supplies an 5 M/s Furniture Concepts (I) Ltd. obvious omission therein is required to be read retrospectively in operation, particularly to give effect to the section as a whole. As per the sub-clause (ia) of clause (a)…

Mylan Laboratories Limited, Telangana vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 214/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Chandana Ramachandran, CIT-III(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…on or before due date for filing of the return of income as provided under section 139(1) of the Act. To support the objection, the assessee relied on the following judicial pronouncements • The Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Alom Extrusions Ltd (2010) (319 ITR 306) has held that payment of employees contribution to the respective account by the employer would be allowed as deduction on actual payment. • The Jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT and Ors Vs Sabari Enterprises & Ors (298 ITR 141), wherein the assessee had made contributions toward PF and ESI after the close of the accounti…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Agila Specialties Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 179/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Chandana Ramachandran, CIT-III(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

ITO, Ward-45(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Ashok Trading Company, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 650/KOL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shrin.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

Section 143(3)(II)Section 194CSection 40Section 68

…ch was never contemplated and therefore should be construed as having retrospective operation. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Allied Motors 224 ITR 677 (SC) and in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble ITA No.650/Kol/2012 A.Y. 2006-07 ITO Wd-45(2) Kol v. M/s Ashok Trading Co. Page 5 Supreme Court in the context of amendments to the provisions of section 43B of the Act took the view that the amendment were intended to remove hardship and though they were not stated to be retrospective in operation, will apply retrospect…

M/S Ravi Spice Processors Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, we set aside the orders of lower authorities and remit both the issues under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, back to the AO for verification afresh in accordance with law

ITA 426/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri. N. V. Vasudevan & Shri. Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. T. N. Prakash, JCIT

Section 194CSection 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…

Sri. Satish Rajapur, Hospet vs. DCIT, Bellary

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

ITA 425/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Sept 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boaz, Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Gurunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt.CIT(DR)

Section 2Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40a

…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 Page 10 of 18 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…

M/S Times Vpl Ltd vs. Addl.C.I.T

In the result, the assessee's appeal for both assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1193/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, C.I.T (D.R)

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

…is clarificatory in nature and hence cannot be invoked when the tax due on the said amount has been paid by the payee. In support of this proposition, the assessee has placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements :- (i) CIT V Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306 (SC); (ii) Allied Motors (P) Ltd. V CIT 224 ITR 677 (SC); and (iii) DCIT V Ananda Markala (2014) 150 ITD 323 (Bang). 7.3 It is the contention of the assessee that BCCL has already been paid these amounts by the assessee within the concerned previous years and nothing was outstanding as on 31st March, 2008 and 31st March, 2009. It was submitted th…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Spectrum Consultants India Pvt. Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

WA/4077/2013HC Karnataka09 Dec 2013

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 264Section 4Section 43B

…the case of ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANR. v. SABARI ENTERPRISES’ reported in (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar) and contended, the same is approved by the Apex Court in the case of ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD.’ reported in (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC). The Commissioner rejected the petition by its order dated 16.12.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the 4 assessee preferred a writ petition before this Court. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, accepted the case of the assessee and held that the contributions were deductable even though paid beyond the due date presc…

Commissioner of Income tax-V vs. M/s. Intrack Inc

ITTA/590/2013HC Telangana06 Dec 2013

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi VI vs. Talbros (P) Ltd

ITA/218/2013HC Delhi06 Sept 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 139Section 260ASection 40

…ecision 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 g…