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.

Chase Security, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 796/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Chase Security, Vs. The Ito, No.16/A, 1St Floor, Millar Tank Bund Ward – 6(3)(1), Cpc, Road, Vasanth Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 052. Pan : Aaefc 2412 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sheethal Borkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2022 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Dated 29.04.2021 By The Nfac, Delhi 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: Smt. Sheethal Borkar, 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. Chase Security, Vs. The ITO, No.16/A, 1st Floor, Millar Tank Bund Ward – 6(3)(1), CPC, Road, Vasanth Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 052. PAN : AAEFC 2412 L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Sheethal Borkar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date of hearing : 21.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 23.11.2022 O R D E R This is an appeal by the assessee directed against the order dated 29.04.2021 by the NFAC, Delhi relating to Assessment Year 201…

S B Creations, Nai Sarak, Delhi vs. Asstt. Director, Income Tax

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1270/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, CIT DR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. C. N. Prasad, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 1270/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 S B Creations, Vs Assistant Director, 1492, Gali Pipal Wali, Nai Sarak, CPC, Delhi-110006 Karnataka-560500 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ADKFS1723R Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. M. Baranwal, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 08.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 23.11.2022 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delh…

Draeger Safety India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax NFAC, Mumbai

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

ITA 1533/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhdraeger Safety India Vs. Commissioner Of Income Private Limited, Tax Appeals 9Th Floor, Commerz Ii National Faceless International Business Assessment Centre Park, Oberoi Garden Delhi City, Off Western Express Highway Mumbai – 400063 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaecd0537A Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Mahita Nair

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ies 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 8. Krishna Kanha Shelters Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT ITAT…

Mayur Uniquoters Limited, Jaipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax NFAC, New Delhi

Appeals of the assesse are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 2/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar, C.AFor Respondent: MonishaChoudhary, JCIT

Section 14ASection 234CSection 80Section 80J

…not serve its object in such a situation unless it is construed as retrospective. The view, therefore, taken by the Delhi High Court cannot be sustained.” 100. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd’, 319 ITR 306 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where a proviso in section is inserted to remedy unintended consequences to make section workable the proviso which supplies obvious omission therein in required to be read retrospectively in operation particularly to give effect to section as a whole. 27 ITANo.2&212/JPR/202 2 MayurUniquotersLtd. V, 10…

2M Ateliers & Design Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asstt. DIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1357/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm 2M Ateliers & Design Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Dit, Cpc 62, Evergreen Industrial Estate, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560 001 Shakti Mill Lane, Mahalaxmi, Vs. Mumbai-400 011

For Appellant: None

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

…t that the assessee has made the impugned payment before the due date of filing of the returns and has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Vinay Cements Ltd. [2007] 213 CTR (SC) 268, CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Limited (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 1 (Bom) and various other decisions of the co-ordinate benches. The assessee has relied on the proposition laid down in the case of Alom Extrusions Limited (supra), wherein it was held that the amendment to section 43B brought about…

M/S Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 901/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT) a

Section 145(3)Section 40

…of filing of return of income, hence the same is allowable deduction as per sec. 43B of the Act. I have also gone through various judicial precedents on this issue and I find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Alorn Extrusions Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 306 held that omission of second proviso to sec 43B and the amendment of first proviso by Finance Act, 2003, bringing about uniformity in payment of tax, duty, cess and fee on one hand and contribution to employees' welfare funds on the other, are curative in nature, and thus, effective retrospectively w.e.f. 1-4-88 i.e. the date of insertion of firs…

M/S Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 900/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT) a

Section 145(3)Section 40

Checkmate Services P Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-I

C.A. No.-002833-002833 - 2016Supreme Court12 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…nts, relied upon the judgment of this court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Alom Extrusions Ltd.9 It was urged that this decision had considered the effect 8 Circular No. 495 dated 22.09.1987. 9 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Alom Extrusions Ltd., (2010) 1 SCC 489. 8 of deletion of the second proviso to Section 43B of IT Act (by Finance Act, 2003) and whether the same operated prospectively. The court rejected the Revenue’s appeal and held that the omission of the second proviso to Section 43B was curative and therefore operated retrospectively. Mr. Datar urged that in Alom Extrusions, the cour…

Enmas India Private Limited, Tiruvallur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 714/CHNY/2022[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.714/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020 -21 M/S. Enmas India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Sp 107, Eom Square Ambattur, Vs. Income Tax, Ambattur Indl. Estate S.O., Tiruvallur, Cpc, Bengaluru 560 500. Tamil Nadu 600 058. [Pan:Aabce4825F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Zakir Hussain, C.A. & Shri Sriraj Gokavarapu, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 03.08.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2020-21 On 16.12.2020 Declaring The Total Income At ₹.4,77,23,830/-. The Cpc, Bengaluru Has Completed The 2

For Appellant: Shri Zakir Hussain, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. CIT

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

…of Madras in the case of M/s. Industrial Security and Intelligence India P Ltd., supra, wherein it is 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 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. Amil Ltd. reported in 321 ITR 508 hel…

M/S, Madras Hydraulic Hose Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-4(1), Chennai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 702/CHNY/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singhand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 139(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…CIT v. Industrial Security & Intelligence India (P.) Ltd. [TCA No. 585 of 2015, dated 24-7- 2015] and 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 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. Amil Ltd. reported in 321 ITR 508 hel…

M/S Bab Leather Products International, Thirumudivakkam vs. DCIT, Chenai

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

ITA 665/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.665/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Bab Leather Products The Deputy Commissioner Of International, 162/163, Sidco Vs. Income Tax, Industrial Estate, Thirumudivakkam, Non Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai 600 044. Chennai. [Pan:Aaafb6228M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Tarun, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 28.07.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16 On 23.09.2015 Declaring The Total Income At ₹.54,09,150/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & 2

For Appellant: Shri G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.665/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. BAB Leather Products The Deputy Commissioner of International, 162/163, SIDCO Vs. Income Tax, Industrial Estate, Thirumudivakkam, Non Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai 600 044. Chennai. [PAN:AAAFB6228M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri G. Tarun, Advocate ""थ"…

Kalpanadevi, Pondicherry vs. ADIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 664/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.664/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Kalpanadevi, The Assistant Director Of 34, Koil Mania Street, Vs. Income Tax, Dharmapuri, Pondicherry 605 009. Cpc, Bengaluru 560 500. [Pan:Csjpk5198N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. N. Dhandapani, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 10.06.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2019-20 Declaring The Total Income At ₹.14,89,000/-. The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Processed Under 2

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. N. Dhandapani, Addl. CIT

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

…of Madras in the case of M/s. Industrial Security and Intelligence India P Ltd., supra, wherein it is 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 to Section 43B and amendment to first proviso by Finance Act, 2003 are curative in nature and 4 I.T.A. No. 664/Chny/22 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. Amil Ltd. r…

Late Mr.Seshadri Naidu Dharmaraj Rep by Legal Heir - Mr.Shankar Ganesh, Chennai vs. CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 661/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singhand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Late Mr.Seshadri Naidu Dharmaraj Rep by Legal Heir - Mr.Shankar Ganesh, Chennai vs. CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 660/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singhand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S Maxima Automation Solutions Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp Circle 4 (1), Chennai

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

ITA 649/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.649/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Maxima Automation Solutions Pvt. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., Represented By Its Managing Income Tax, Director, No. 2/87, Raghaava Nagar, Corporate Circle 4(1), 7Th Street, Moovarasampet, Chennai Madipakkam, Chennai 600 091. [Pan:Aagcm1970L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. James Victor Rajkumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 25.05.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By Eight Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed A 2

For Appellant: Shri P. James Victor RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

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

…of Madras in the case of M/s. Industrial Security and Intelligence India P Ltd., supra, wherein it is 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 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 4 I.T.A. No. 649/Chny/22 of first proviso. The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V. Amil Ltd.…

C. R. Associates, Kota vs. ITO, WD-1(1), Kota

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

ITA 263/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…and subsequent assessment years. (2) That the ld. CIT(A) has also ignored the jurisdictional Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in favour of appellant and has also ignored the binding decision of Hon’ble SC in the case of CIT vs Alom Extrusion Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC), PCIT vs Rajasthan State Beverage Corpn. Ltd. (2017), 84 taxmann.com 173 (Raj). CIT vs Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (2017), 88 taxmann.com 522 (Raj) [2019] 103taxmann.com 196b& (Jaipur Trib)/[2019] 69 ITR (T) 261 (Jaipur- (Trib)/[2019] 175 ITD 557 (Jaipur – Trib). Zuberi Engineering Company vs DCIT, Circle-2, Jaipur. 3. That o…

Novo Management Consulting Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

In the result, we do not perceive any merit in this appeal and accordingly the same stands dismissed

ITA 973/DEL/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmanovo Management Consulting Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pvt Ltd, 440, Ground Floor, Gali Ward-18(4), No D-22, Chattarpur, Pahari, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecn5211B

For Appellant: Shri Vivan Katyal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…tual payment is made before the due date of filing of the Return of Income for the relevant year. Ld counsel submitted that the ld CIT(A) had failed to take into consideration the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC), ACIT Vs. Haryana Telecom Pvt. Ltd 14 taxmann.com 122 (Delhi), Modern Fibotex India Ltd Vs. Dy CIT 212 ITR 496, SRF Charitable Vs. Union of India 193 ITR 95, Pr. CIT Vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd 84 taxmann.com 185, CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd 321 ITR 508 (Delhi), CIT Vs. Solar Exports 27 taxmann.com 289 (SC). 6. It was submitted that…

Mukesh Kalway, Jabalpur vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 43/JAB/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur16 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…t, in it’s view, impact the disallowance u/s. 43B(b) for the years under reference before it, i.e., AYs 1992-93, 1994-95 & 1995-96. The issue considered by the Hon’ble Court is, thus, the same as by the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC), though deciding it to the contrary. As regards the aspect of the retrospective nature of the Explanations under reference, we again find no difference in the view expressed therein with that by the Tribunal in Nikhil Mohine (supra), i.e., per se. So, however, as afore-noted, the said Explanations themselves have been proposed as prospective…

Mukesh Kalway, Jabalpur vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 32/JAB/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur16 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

Hero Ecotech Limited, Ludhiana (Punjab) vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru, Karnataka Bengluru

In the result, we do not perceive any merit in this appeal and accordingly the same stands dismissed

ITA 1469/DEL/2021[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Sept 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmahero Ecotech Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Ludhiana (Punjab), Cpc, Bengaluru, Phase-Viii, Chandigarh Kannataka, Bengluru Road Focal Point, Mangli, Ludhiana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacch1308R

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Bangal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…due date i.e. 30.10.2017 for filing return of income u/s 139(1) for the year under consideration. Ld counsel submitted that the ld CIT(A) had failed to take into consideration the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC), Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd (2014) 368 ITR 749 (Bom) and Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CIT Vs. Hernia Embrodery Mills (P) Ltd (2014) 366 ITR 167 (P&H). It was submitted that after the Bharat Hotel Ltd (supra) case in PCIT Vs. Pro Interactive Service India Pvt. Ltd in ITA 98/2018 Hon‟ble High cou…