What is CIT v. ITI Ltd. authority for?

An employer is not statutorily obligated to collect evidence from employees regarding the actual utilization of amounts paid towards leave travel concession or conveyance allowance, unless specific requirements are mandated by law or a CBDT circular.

How many judgments cite CIT v. ITI Ltd.?

142 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. ITI Ltd. (313 ITR 1), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. ITI Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 10(14)(i), Section 10(5), Section 192, Section 37(1), Section 10B(8).

CIT v. ITI Ltd. (313 ITR 1)

ACIT, JHANDEWALAN vs. M/S MANKIND PHARMA LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S MAGNET LABS PVT. LTD.), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of assesse is allowed and of revenue dismissed

ITA 5141/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Vs M/S Mankind Pharma Ltd. (Earlier Circle-16(1), Known As M/S Magnet Labs Pvt. Delhi. Ltd.), 208, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase-3, Delhi – 110 020. Pan: Aaccm1861C Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Mankind Pharma Ltd. Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As M/S Magnet Circle-16(1), Labs Pvt. Ltd.), Delhi 208, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase-3, Delhi – 110 020. Pan: Aaccm1861C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate & Shri Rahul Prabhakar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Cross Appeals Preferred By The Revenue & The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.08.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-30

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…ed a reasonably substantial sample of vouchers and supporting documents and also explained the existence and working of an Internal control mechanism. Here it would be appropriate to refer the decision of Apex court in the case of CIT vs Larsen & Tourbo Ltd. (313 ITR 1) wherein the Hon'ble Court while dealing with the question, whether the assessee employer was under statutory obligation to collect evidence to show that its employees had actually utilized the amount(s) paid towards leave travel concession/ conveyance allowance. While deciding the matter in the favour of assessee-employer the Hon'ble court ruled t…

MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR OF MAGNET LABS PVT. LTD.),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 16(1) DELHI, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of assesse is allowed and of revenue dismissed

ITA 4654/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Vs M/S Mankind Pharma Ltd. (Earlier Circle-16(1), Known As M/S Magnet Labs Pvt. Delhi. Ltd.), 208, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase-3, Delhi – 110 020. Pan: Aaccm1861C Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Mankind Pharma Ltd. Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As M/S Magnet Circle-16(1), Labs Pvt. Ltd.), Delhi 208, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase-3, Delhi – 110 020. Pan: Aaccm1861C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate & Shri Rahul Prabhakar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Cross Appeals Preferred By The Revenue & The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.08.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-30

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…ed a reasonably substantial sample of vouchers and supporting documents and also explained the existence and working of an Internal control mechanism. Here it would be appropriate to refer the decision of Apex court in the case of CIT vs Larsen & Tourbo Ltd. (313 ITR 1) wherein the Hon'ble Court while dealing with the question, whether the assessee employer was under statutory obligation to collect evidence to show that its employees had actually utilized the amount(s) paid towards leave travel concession/ conveyance allowance. While deciding the matter in the favour of assessee-employer the Hon'ble court ruled t…

ASHWANI TALWAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2868/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaashwani Talwar, Vs. Ito, C/O. Advocate Deepak Ward-7(1), Kapoor, 59, Nehru New Delhi Apartments, Outer Ringh Road, Kalkaji, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaapt0920E

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 10BSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 74

…4-15. That the assessee duly filed the reply to the notice under section 154 of the Act and brought all the facts to the of the assessing officer. The assessee also relied on the decision of jurisdiction of high court in case of "PCIT vs. Neeraj Jindal (2017) 313 ITR 1". 12. That in spite of clear position in law, the Ld. AO passed rectification order under section 154 of the Act dated 11-01-2022 for A.Y. 2015-16 denying the assessee carry forward and set off of STCL and thereby making additions under the head Capital Gains to the extent of Rs. 3,99,96,909/- and assessing the income of the assessee at Rs. 4,16,61…

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

…ITA No.2634/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 1 M/s Veto Switchgears and Cables Ltd Vs ACIT, 13(3)(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s Veto Switchgears Vs. ACIT, 13(3)(2) And 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 Appellant by : None Respondent by : Vranda U Matkarni Date of Hearing 15.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement 16.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R…

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

…ITA No.1533/Mum/2022 A.Y.2018-19 1 Draeger Safety India Pvt. Ltd. VS.CIT(A) NFAC IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Draeger 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 Appellant by : Bhupendra Shah Respondent by : Mahita Nair Date of Hearing 13.10.2022 Da…

DECIMAL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, FATEHABAD

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 460/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Addressing The Grievance Of The Assessee, It Is Relevant To Address Delay Of 2 Days Pointed Out By The Registry

For Appellant: Shri Sankalp Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Sudershan, Sr.DR

…t in the case of CIT Vs Aimil Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 took specific cognizance of the fact that this decision pertained to the employee’s contribution wherein again a reference had been made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Vinay Cement 313 ITR 1. Considering the reasoning in these decisions, Their Lordships in the case of Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (supra) consciously followed the view taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Aimil’s case and concluded that the view expressed by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in CIT Vs Commonwealth Trust Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 290 was not being followed as it was…

AMIT SINGH,BHIWADI (ALWAR) vs. DCIT, CPC- BENGALURU, CPC- BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 284/JPR/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2018-2019

For Appellant: Shri Rahish Mohammed (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 36(1)(va)

…upreme Court [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC) November 25, 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Alom Extrusions Limited 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court [1997] 224 ITR 677 (SC) March 10, 1997 Allied Motors Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax 13. SC order [2009] 313 ITR 1 March 7, 2007 CIT vs. Vinay Cement Ltd. 14 SC order: July 4, 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. M/s Rajasthan State ;beverages Corpn. Ltd. 15. Hon’ble Supreme Court of Incie:[ 2009] 313 ITR (St.) 1: March 7, 2007 CIT vs. Vinay Cement Ltd. (16) Gauhati High Court [2006] 284 ITR 619: June 26, 2006 Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Geo…

M/S SUSHMA BUILDTECH LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CPC/DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 323/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Return.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr.DR

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

…t in the case of CIT Vs Aimil Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 took specific cognizance of the fact that this decision pertained to the employee’s contribution wherein again a reference had been made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Vinay Cement 313 ITR 1. Considering the reasoning in these decisions, Their Lordships in the case of Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (supra) consciously followed the view taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Aimil’s case and concluded that the view expressed by ITA 323 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2018-19 Page 8 of 8 the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in CIT Vs Commonwealth Trust Ltd. (2004) 2…

M/SQUIXOTIC HEALTHCARE,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CPC/ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Return.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr.DR

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

…t in the case of CIT Vs Aimil Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 took specific cognizance of the fact that this decision pertained to the employee’s contribution wherein again a reference had been made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Vinay Cement 313 ITR 1. Considering the reasoning in these decisions, Their Lordships in the case of Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (supra) consciously followed the view taken ITA 322 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2018-19 Page 8 of 8 by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Aimil’s case and concluded that the view expressed by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in CIT Vs Commonwealth Trust Ltd. (2004)…

MANMEET ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT,CPC//DCIT-CIRCLE-V(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 318/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Vidisha Vinay, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr.DR

Section 250(6)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…t in the case of CIT Vs Aimil Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 took specific cognizance of the fact that this decision pertained to the employee’s contribution wherein again a reference had been made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Vinay Cement 313 ITR 1. Considering the reasoning in these decisions, Their Lordships in the case of Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (supra) consciously followed the view taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Aimil’s case and concluded that the view expressed by ITA 318 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2018-19 Page 8 of 8 the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in CIT Vs Commonwealth Trust Ltd. (2004) 2…

SATISH ENGINEERING WORKS,MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE, BANGALORE., JUDICIAL ASSESSING OFFICER:WARD-21(3)(2), MUMBAI, BANGLORE

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

ITA 1028/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

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

…Hon'ble Supreme Court for the proposition that when contribution had been paid prior to filing of return under section 139(1), assessee would be entitled for deduction:- 1. CIT vs M/s Alom Extrusions Limited - 319 ITR 306(SC) 2. CIT VS Vinay Cement Limited - 313 ITR 1 (ST)(SC) 3. Mahadev Gold Storage vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer & Anr 127taxmann.com 722 (Agra) 4. M/s Crescent Roadways Pvt Ltd ITA No.l952/Hyd.2018 3 ITA 1028/Mum/2021 5. Aj'ay Piplani vs ADIT ITA No.114/Chd/2021 6. Shri Gopalakrishna Aswini Kumar vs ADIT ITA No.359/Bang/2021 The Ld.AR of the assessee before us, submitted in the paper boo…

M/S PAGRO FROZEN FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,MOHALI vs. DCIT,CPC//ITO-WARD-2(3), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 331/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Return.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr.DR

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

…t in the case of CIT Vs Aimil Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 took specific cognizance of the fact that this decision pertained to the employee’s contribution wherein again a reference had been made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Vinay Cement 313 ITR 1. Considering the reasoning in these decisions, Their Lordships in the case of Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (supra) consciously followed the view taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Aimil’s case and concluded that the view expressed by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in CIT Vs Commonwealth Trust Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 290 was not being followed as it was…