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 43BSection 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 43bsection 2(24)section 43section 36(1)section 36section 139(1)section 139section 143(1)section 13prescribed

Judgments citing CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd.

M/S G.L.Construction Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT/National Face Less Appeal Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for stati...

ITA 2846/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S G.L. Construction Pvt. Ltd, Acit/National Faceless 304, Gokul Arcade B, Subhash Appeal Centre, Road, Near Garware, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vile Parle East, Churchgate, Mumbai-400057. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacg 3438 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. N.R. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Sonia Kumar, Dr : Date Of Hearing 16/02/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 23/02/2023

For Appellant: Mr. N.R. Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Sonia Kumar, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/s G.L. Construction Pvt. Ltd, ACIT/National Faceless 304, Gokul Arcade B, Subhash Appeal Centre, Road, Near Garware, Vs. 5th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vile Parle East, Churchgate, Mumbai-400057. Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AAACG 3438 P Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. N.R. Agrawal, AR Revenue by : Smt. Sonia Kumar, DR : Date of Hearing 16/02/2023 : Date of pronouncement 23/02/2023 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal has been p…

Lioyd Healthcare Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (CPC) Bangalore, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2342/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri S Rifaur Rahman () Lloyd Healthcare Pvt Ltd Vs Dcit (Cpc), Bangalore Unit No.3A, Wing B, 2Nd Floor Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Times Square, Marol 400 020 Andheri Kurla Road Andheri East, Mumbai-400 059 Pan : Aaccl1129L Appellant Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 36Section 36(1)(va)

…e is paid on or before due date of filing of return. c) By disregarding the judgement of Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749 and Hind Filter Ltd 90 taxmann.com 51 (Bombay) and Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC). d) By disregarding the fact that the judgement of Jurisdictional High Court is binding even in faceless appeal and assessment as per the order of Mahadev Cold Storage 127 taxmann.com 722 (Agra) in which it is held that, "Though Centralized NFAC has been created by Notification by CBDT, it should be ensured that whenever any appellate order…

Bindal Apparels Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1727/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Sujit Kr. Yadav, AccountantFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

…eas the Hon’ble High Courts of Bombay, Himachal Pradesh, Calcutta, Guwahati and Delhi have favoured the interpretation beneficial to the assessee. The Hon’ble Apex Bench effectively reversed the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (1 SCC 489) relied upon by the assessee. 4. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts viz., the employers’ contribution and employees’ contribution required to be deposited by the employer. The first one is the employer’s liability is to be paid out of its income whereas the second…

Aircon Engineers Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-1(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1735/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Aircon Engineers Private Limited, Vs. Ito, 276, Sultan Sadan-1, Cpc, Lane No.3, Westend Marg, Bangalore. Saidulajaib, New Delhi – 110 030. Pan: Aaaca5824B

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

…the Hon’ble High Courts of Bombay, Himachal Pradesh, Calcutta, Guwahati and Delhi have favoured the interpretation beneficial to the assessee. 5. The Hon’ble Apex Bench effectively reversed the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (1 SCC 489) relied upon by the assessee in its recent judgement in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I in CA No. 2833/2016 vide order dated 12.10.2022 and ruled in favour of the Department and against the assessee. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two…

Barmalt Malting (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1763/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Kr. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

…eas the Hon’ble High Courts of Bombay, Himachal Pradesh, Calcutta, Guwahati and Delhi have favoured the interpretation beneficial to the assessee. The Hon’ble Apex Bench effectively reversed the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (1 SCC 489) relied upon by the assessee. 4. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts viz., the employers’ contribution and employees’ contribution required to be deposited by the employer. The first one is the employer’s liability is to be paid out of its income whereas the second…

Aakaar Creations Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1688/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Kr. Khiwani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

…eas the Hon’ble High Courts of Bombay, Himachal Pradesh, Calcutta, Guwahati and Delhi have favoured the interpretation beneficial to the assessee. The Hon’ble Apex Bench effectively reversed the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (1 SCC 489) relied upon by the assessee. 4. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts viz., the employers’ contribution and employees’ contribution required to be deposited by the employer. The first one is the employer’s liability is to be paid out of its income whereas the second…

Best Location Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1456/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1456/Del/2022: Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Best Location Properties Pvt. Ltd, Vs Ito, F-40, Ndse Part-1, Ward-4(3), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccb8008L

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. C. M. Garg, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 1456/Del/2022: Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Best Location Properties Pvt. Ltd, Vs ITO, F-40, NDSE Part-1, Ward-4(3), New Delhi New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AACCB8008L Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 07.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 08.02.2023 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 20.05.2022 for Assessme…

Hi-Lite Builders Private Limited, Kozhikode vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Kozhikode

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 620/COCH/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. Shameem Ahamed, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…The aforesaid view has consistently been followed by this Court in the following cases, viz., Whirlpool of India Ltd., v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 3, CIT v. Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd.[2002] 255 ITR 117/[2002] 123 Taxman 74 (SC) and CIT v. Alom Enterprises Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306/185 Taxman 416 (SC). 30. Hence, in light of the forgoing discussion and the binding effect of the judgment given in Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. case (supra), we are of the view that the amended provision of Sec 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act should be interpreted liberally and equitable and applies retrospectively from the date when Section 40(a)(ia) was in…

Aegis Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 6(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 717/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalaegis Ltd. Essar House, 11, K. K. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai –400034 Pan – Aaace8354Q ……………. Appellant Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle–6(1)(1), Mumbai ……………. Respondent Assessee By: Shri Rajan R. Vora Revenue By: Dr. Yogesh Kamath Date Of Hearing: 10/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2023 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M. 1. This Appeal By The Appellant Is Against The Assessment Order Dated 25Th February 2022 Passed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “General 1. Erred In Determining The Total Taxable Income Of The Appellant For Ay 2017-18 At Inr 40,44,64,087 As Against Returned Income Of Inr 12,36,48,010 As Reported In The Return Of Income Filed By The Appellant. Part I - Transfer Pricing Adjustments

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. VoraFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamath
Section 234DSection 244ASection 271ASection 36(1)(va)Section 92C

…s Limited earlier known as Concorde Motors (India) Limited) (ITA No 931/M/2021) dated 29 December 2021. iii) Ramesh Narayan Shetty (ITA 2008/M/2021 and ITA 79 & 80/M/2022) dated 12 May 2022 8 ITA No.717/Mum/2022-Aegis limited iv) Alom Extrusions Ltd [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC) v) CIT vs Vinay Cement Ltd [213 CTR 268 (SC), 16. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and DRP. 17. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. However, recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd vs CIT in Civil Appeal No.283…

M/S Veto Switchgears and Cables Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 2634/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalm/S Veto Switchgears Vs. Acit, 13(3)(2) & Cables Limited Room No. 229, 2 Nd Floor, 4Th Floor, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharashtra Maharishi Karve Road, 400 058 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccv4990K Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Vranda U Matkarni
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 438Section 43B

…es of document showing that amount received from employees towards EPF and ESI were deposited before the due date of filing of the return of income. The ld. Counsel has also placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: 1. Alom Extrusions Limited 319 ITR 306 (SC) 2. Vinay Cement limited 313 ITR1 (ST)(SC) 3. Hind Filter Ltd. 90 taxmann.com 51 (Bombay) 4. Mahadev Cold Storage 127 taxmann.com 722 (Agra) 5. M/s Crescent Roadways Private Limited (ITA No.1952/Hyd/2018) 6. Ajay Piplani (ITA No. 114/Chd/2021) 7. Gopal Krishna Aswini Kumar ITA No. 359/Bang/2021 ITA No.2634/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 3 M/s Veto Sw…

Kailash Khemani, Raipur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

ITA 93/RPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.93/Rpr/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Kailash Khemani, V The Dcit, Circle-1(1), City Motors, Near Mmi, S Raipur. Pachpedi Naka, Raipur – 492001. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Ms.Sheetal Agrawal – Ca Revenue By Shri G.N.Singh – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Kailash Khemani Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A), Nfac Dated 01.10.2021 For The A.Y. 2017- 18 Emanating From The Order Of Acit, Raipur, Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act On 24.12.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. Whether Learned Cit(A) Is Correct In Considering The Retrospective Effect Of Amendment Made By Finance Act 2021 In Sec. 43B?

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

…proviso with some retrospective date. 3.5 Various tribunals in their recent judgements make it clear that amendment will take effect from 01.04.2021.” 3. The ld.AR further relied upon the following case laws are as under:  “CIT vs. Alom Extrustions Ltd., in 319 ITR 306(SC)  CIT Vs. Vatika Township (P)(Ltd.) (2014) 227 TAXMAN 0121 (SC)  CIT Vs. Vatika Township (P)(Ltd.) (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC), (2014) 227 TAXMAN 0121 (SC) 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The Assessing Officer(AO) during the assessment proceedings has observed that as per the Audit Report of the assessee, assessee had…

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs. The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/82/2018HC Himachal Pradesh07 Dec 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL KUKREJA

Section 145Section 36Section 43D

…ent judgment of this Court in the case of UCO Bank Vs. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889.” 17. Learned counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax versus Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC), wherein it has been held as under:- “16. We find no merit in these civil appeals filed by the Department for the following reasons: firstly, as stated above, Section 43-B [main section], which stood inserted by Finance Act, 1983, with effect from April 1, 1984, expressly commences with a non-obstante clause, the underlying…

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs. The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/83/2018HC Himachal Pradesh07 Dec 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL KUKREJA

Section 145Section 36Section 43D

…ent judgment of this Court in the case of UCO Bank Vs. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889.” 17. Learned counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax versus Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC), wherein it has been held as under:- “16. We find no merit in these civil appeals filed by the Department for the following reasons: firstly, as stated above, Section 43-B [main section], which stood inserted by Finance Act, 1983, with effect from April 1, 1984, expressly commences with a non-obstante clause, the underlying…

M/S. Lupin Investments Pvt. Ltd (As A Sucessor to Novamed Investments Pvt. Ltd), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commisssioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1812/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Lupin Investments Vs. Acit, Circle – 14(1)(1) Pvt Ltd (Successor To Mumbai. Novamed Investments Pvt Ltd.,) 159, Cst Road, Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400098. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl1070G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Hemen Chandaria.Ar Respondent By : Shri Manoj Sinha.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/S 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 35ASection 80G

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BASKARAN BR, ACCOUNTAT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Lupin Investments Vs. ACIT, Circle – 14(1)(1) Pvt Ltd (Successor to Mumbai. novamed Investments Pvt Ltd.,) 159, CST Road, Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400098. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACL1070G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Hemen Chandaria.AR Respondent by : Shri Manoj Sinha.DR Date of Hearing 10.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement 30.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: The assessee has filed the appeal ag…

M/S. Suresh Electricals, Bellary vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 724/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Suresh Electricals, Vs. Dcit, Ward No.25, Cmc T. S. No.227, Tilak Cpc, Nagar, Khb Colony, Bengaluru. Bellary – 583 101. Pan : Abyfs 9751 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. B. S. Balachandran, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2022 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Nfac, Delhi, Dated 12.07.2022, Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Only Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Revenue Authorities Were Justified In Disallowing Payment Made To Esi/Pf Being Employees’ Share Of Contribution Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). 3. In This Regard, It Is Pertinent To Note That The Employee Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Was Promulgated To Provide For Such Institution Of Provident Funds, Pension Fund & Deposit-Linked Insurance Fund For Employees In Factories & Other Establishments. It Aims To Build Adequate Retirement Corpus For The Salaried Class Of Employees. The Fund Includes Contributions From The Employer & Employee Both, Page 2 Of 14

For Appellant: Shri. B. S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC - C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/s. Suresh Electricals, Vs. DCIT, Ward No.25, CMC T. S. No.227, Tilak CPC, Nagar, KHB Colony, Bengaluru. Bellary – 583 101. PAN : ABYFS 9751 M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. B. S. Balachandran, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date of hearing : 23.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 24.11.2022 O R D E R This is an appeal by the assessee directed against the order of NFAC, Delhi, dated 12.07.2022, relating to Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The only…

Cleanflo India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Circle-6(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1621/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Baldev Raj, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari R., Sr. DR
Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

…eas the Hon’ble High Courts of Bombay, Himachal Pradesh, Calcutta, Guwahati and Delhi have favoured the interpretation beneficial to the assessee. The Hon’ble Apex Bench effectively reversed the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (1 SCC 489) relied upon by the assessee. 4. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts viz., the employers’ contribution and employees’ contribution required to be deposited by the employer. The first one is the employer’s liability is to be paid out of its income whereas the second…

DCIT, Circle- 13(1), New Delhi vs. Jagson International Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5375/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 115VSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 40

…eas the Hon’ble High Courts of Bombay, Himachal Pradesh, Calcutta, Guwahati and Delhi have favoured the interpretation beneficial to the assessee. The Hon’ble Apex Bench effectively reversed the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (1 SCC 489) relied upon by the assessee. 29. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts viz., the employers’ contribution and employees’ contribution required to be deposited by the employer. The first one is the employer’s liability is to be paid out of its income whereas the second…

DCIT, Circle- 13(1), New Delhi vs. Jagson International Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6872/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 115VSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 40

…eas the Hon’ble High Courts of Bombay, Himachal Pradesh, Calcutta, Guwahati and Delhi have favoured the interpretation beneficial to the assessee. The Hon’ble Apex Bench effectively reversed the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (1 SCC 489) relied upon by the assessee. 29. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts viz., the employers’ contribution and employees’ contribution required to be deposited by the employer. The first one is the employer’s liability is to be paid out of its income whereas the second…

Biswajit Nayak, Rajgangpur vs. ITO Ward-2, Rourkela

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

ITA 17/CTK/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack24 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2018-19 Biswajit Biswajit Nayak, Nayak, C/O. C/O. Vs. Ito, Ward Ito, Ward-2, Rourkela Biswajit Nayak, Banthupara Biswajit Nayak, Banthupara Rajgangpur, Rajgangpur, Sundargarh Sundargarh- 770017 Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Abwpn 2210 J (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : S/Shri S.K.Agarwalla, Ca & S.K.Hota & S.K.Hota, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/11 11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/11 11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-Nfac, Nfac, Delhi Delhi Dated 23.12.2021 23.12.2021 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/.250/2021 Itba/Nfac/S/.250/2021-22/1038053683(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. S/Shri S.K.Agarwalla S.K.Agarwalla, Ca & S.K.Hota, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: S/Shri S.K.Agarwalla, CA and S.K.Hota and S.K.Hota, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, SR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…ssue of employer’s contribution to PF and ESI paid beyond the due date under the PF Act but before the due date of filing of return of income, the same was covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd., (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC), wherein, it has been held that deletion of second proviso to section 43B by Finance Act, 2003 is retrospective and it would operate with effect from 1.4.1988. Accordingly, the amount paid before the date of filing of the return under the Act, the deduction is allowable. It was the submission that the disallowance was not called for. 4. In…

Bhoruka Fabcons Private Limited, Mysuru vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 910/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Bhoruka Fabcons Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, No.427E, Hebbal Industrial Area, Cpc, Mysuru – 570 016. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaccb 9377 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Bhargava S. N, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2022 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Nfac, Delhi, Dated 28.07.2022, Relating To Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Only Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Revenue Authorities Were Justified In Disallowing Payment Made To Esi/Pf Being Employees’ Share Of Contribution Under Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). 3. In This Regard, It Is Pertinent To Note That The Employee Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Was Promulgated To Provide For Such Institution Of Provident Funds, Pension Fund & Deposit-Linked Insurance Fund For Employees In Factories & Other Establishments. It Aims To Build Adequate Retirement Corpus For The Salaried Class Of Employees. The Fund Includes Contributions From The Employer & Employee Both, Calculated In The Prescribed Manner Under The Relevant Act. As Per Page 2 Of 13

For Appellant: Shri. Bhargava S. N, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC - C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment Year : 2020-21 M/s. Bhoruka Fabcons Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, No.427E, Hebbal Industrial Area, CPC, Mysuru – 570 016. Bengaluru. PAN : AACCB 9377 N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Bhargava S. N, CA Revenue by : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date of hearing : 23.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 24.11.2022 O R D E R This is an appeal by the assessee directed against the order of NFAC, Delhi, dated 28.07.2022, relating to Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The…