CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd.

350 ITR 327High Court2013#170 most cited

What is CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. authority for?

Deduction for employee contributions to EPF/ESI is allowable under section 43B if paid before the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1), irrespective of the due dates under the respective welfare fund statutes.

425

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. · 350 ITR 327 · Section 43B · Section 36(1)(va) · Section 139(1) · EPF ESI deduction · employee contribution · due date payment · Himachal Pradesh High Court · Provident Fund · Employees’ State Insurance

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 158besection 113section 92fclarificatory amendmentretrospective amendmentsection 158bbsection 158bsection 36(1)(va)section 158section 43bsection 132asection 36(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd.

M/S S.K. Shoes and Boots Private Limited, Kanpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(5), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 110/LKW/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Mar 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2018-19

Section 43B

…r Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 163, Punjab & Haryana High Court in Commissioner of IncomeTax Vs Hemla Embroidery Mills P. Ltd., (2014) 366 ITR 167, Himachal Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of IncomeTax Vs Nipso Ployfabriks Ltd., (2013) 350 ITR 327 and Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of IncomeTax Vs Sabri Enterprises, (2008) 298 ITR 141. 21. Karnataka High Court had an occasion to consider, whether it should dissent with the view taken in the earlier judgments and follow the view taken by Gujrat High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Gujrat State Road Transport Corporation (supra)…

Sabarmati Gas Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1607/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT DR &
Section 250(6)

…und as allowable by relying on following decisions a. CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) b. CIT vs. Aimil Limited - (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) c. Parry Agro Industries Vs. ACIT (2009) 314 ITR (AT) 181 d. CIT Vs. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP) 2.5 The Appellant humbly submits that disallowance of Rs. 1,75,9047- towards employee's provident fund contribution u/s. 36(1 )(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the act as confirmed by the learned CIT(A) may kindly be deleted as the appellant has deposited employee's provident fund and on or before due date of filing of return. 68. Ld. Counsel for the…

The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Gandhinagar vs. Sabarmati Gas Limited, Gandhinagar

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1533/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT DR &
Section 250(6)

…und as allowable by relying on following decisions a. CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) b. CIT vs. Aimil Limited - (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) c. Parry Agro Industries Vs. ACIT (2009) 314 ITR (AT) 181 d. CIT Vs. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP) 2.5 The Appellant humbly submits that disallowance of Rs. 1,75,9047- towards employee's provident fund contribution u/s. 36(1 )(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the act as confirmed by the learned CIT(A) may kindly be deleted as the appellant has deposited employee's provident fund and on or before due date of filing of return. 68. Ld. Counsel for the…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-1., Chennai vs. M/S Paypal India Private Limited, Chennai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 450/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri P Sajit Kumar(JCIT) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Ashish– Ld. AR
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…paid in pursuance of sec. 43B. The CIT(A) further noted the decisions in favour of assessee in para 7.7, and the same are as under: 1. CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 (SC) 2. Aimil Ltd. (supra) 3. CIT v. Nispo Polyfabriks [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 34 taxmann.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugd…

S.E.Palanivel, Salem, Tamilnadu vs. Amrit Raj Singh, Salem

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 352/CHNY/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am S.

Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…paid in pursuance of sec. 43B. The CIT(A) further noted the decisions in favour of assessee in para 7.7, and the same are as under: 1. CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 (SC) 2. Aimil Ltd. (supra) 3. CIT v. Nispo Polyfabriks [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 34 taxmann.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugd…

Samay Projects Private Limited, Chennnai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 331/CHNY/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am S.

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

…paid in pursuance of sec. 43B. The CIT(A) further noted the decisions in favour of assessee in para 7.7, and the same are as under: 1. CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 (SC) 2. Aimil Ltd. (supra) 3. CIT v. Nispo Polyfabriks [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 34 taxmann.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugd…

Benco Thermal Technologies Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed

ITA 281/CHNY/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yeswanth Kumar (CA)-Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajith Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…paid in pursuance of sec. 43B. The CIT(A) further noted the decisions in favour of assessee in para 7.7, and the same are as under: 1. CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 (SC) 2. Aimil Ltd. (supra) 3. CIT v. Nispo Polyfabriks [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 34 taxmann.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugd…

Sree Ram Constructions, No.77, Ramanuja Nagar, Uppilipalayam Post, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 273/CHNY/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am S.

…paid in pursuance of sec. 43B. The CIT(A) further noted the decisions in favour of assessee in para 7.7, and the same are as under: 1. CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 (SC) 2. Aimil Ltd. (supra) 3. CIT v. Nispo Polyfabriks [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 34 taxmann.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugd…

Suresh Productions Entertainment LLP, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 134/CHNY/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am S.

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

…paid in pursuance of sec. 43B. The CIT(A) further noted the decisions in favour of assessee in para 7.7, and the same are as under: 1. CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 185 Taxman 416/319 ITR 306 (SC) 2. Aimil Ltd. (supra) 3. CIT v. Nispo Polyfabriks [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 34 taxmann.com 20/215 Taxman 597 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugd…

Computer Clinic India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1571/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Computer Clinic India Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, 301-A, Sagar Complex, Ward-6(2), New Rajdhani Enclave, Vikas Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi-110092. Pan-Aaacc5384N Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rahul Kant, Ar Respondent By Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.02.2022

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(X)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…red to in s. 28 of the Act. The argument that two view are possible is not acceptable because only one view is possible on a correct interpretation of the provision (Alom Extrusion 319 ITR 350 (SC) distinguished, Aimil Ltd 321 ITR 508 (Del), Nipso Polyfabriks 350 ITR 327 (HP), Spectrum Consultants 34 taxmann.com 20 (Kar); Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sandh 35 taxmann.com616 (Raj) & Hemla Embroidery Mills (P&H) dissented" Similarly in the case of ITO vs. LKP Securities Ltd. Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai held as under: "S. 43B covers only the sums payable by way of contribution by the assessee as an employer, i.e., the emp…

Pragati Fashions P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dycti (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 569/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalepragati Fashions P Ltd., Vs. Dycti (Cpc) F.P.No. 455, Shree 1 St Floor, Prestige Sadguru Heights, Alpha, Bhavani Shankar Road, Beratenagrahara, Dadar (W) Hosur Road, Uttahalli Mumbai-400028. Hobli,Bangalore- 560100 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp1730H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Girish Dave.Sr.Counsel Respondent By : Shri. S.G. Menon.Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Shri. Girish Dave.Sr.CounselFor Respondent: Shri. S.G. Menon.Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…pursuance of Sec. 43B. The CIT(A) further noted the decisions in favour of assessee in para 7.7, and the same are as under: 1. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra) 2. CIT v. Aimil Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 508/188 Taxman 265 (Delhi); 3. CIT v. NispoPolyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. V. CIT [2013] 215 Taxman 597/34 taxmann.com 20 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dug…

Franch Express Courier Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. The CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 523/CHNY/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.523/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Franch Express Courier Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Director Of No. 199, Hariyan Street, C-Pallavaram, Vs. Income Tax, Cpc, Chennai 600 043. Bengaluru 560 500. [Pan:Aadcf3624P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Vandana Vyas, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 31.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2022 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 28.09.2021 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 On 30.10.2019 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹.39,17,200/-. The Cpc, Bengaluru Has Completed The 2

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Vyas, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

…pursuance of Sec. 43B. The CIT(A) further noted the decisions in favour of assessee in para 7.7, and the same are as under: 1. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra) 2. CIT v. Aimil Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 508/188 Taxman 265 (Delhi); 3. CIT v. NispoPolyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. V. CIT [2013] 215 Taxman 597/34 taxmann.com 20 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dug…

Powerlink Engineers LLP, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2, Nashik

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 279/PUN/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.278 & 279/Pun/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20

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

…nts allowing deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of employees’ share of contribution deposited after due date under the respective Acts but before the date prescribed u/s 139 of the Act. The Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in CIT vs. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP) has held that there exists no difference between employees or employer’s contribution and both are to be allowed as deduction if deposited before the due date. 4. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that the Finance Act, 2021 has inserted Explanation 2 below section 36(1)(va) providing that the provisions of section 43B shall no…

Powerlink Engineers LLP, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -2, Nashik

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 278/PUN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.278 & 279/Pun/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20

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

…nts allowing deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of employees’ share of contribution deposited after due date under the respective Acts but before the date prescribed u/s 139 of the Act. The Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in CIT vs. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP) has held that there exists no difference between employees or employer’s contribution and both are to be allowed as deduction if deposited before the due date. 4. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that the Finance Act, 2021 has inserted Explanation 2 below section 36(1)(va) providing that the provisions of section 43B shall no…

Maharashtra Light Industries, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 14(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 458/PUN/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Pune31 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Maharashtra Light Industries Vs. Ito, Ward 24-B, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, 14(1), Pune Pune – 411013 Pan : Aadfm1525B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Sarvesh Khandelwal Revenue By Shri M.G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing 31-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31-01-2022

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

…dgments allowing deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of employees‟ share of contribution deposited after due date under the respective Acts but before the date prescribed u/s 139 of the Act. The Hon‟ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in CIT vs. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP) has held that there exists no difference between employees‟ or employer‟s contribution and both are to be allowed as deduction if deposited before the due date. 5. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that the Finance Act, 2021 has inserted Explanation 2 below section 36(1)(va) providing that the provisions of section 43B shall not ap…

Transsys Solutions Pvt Ltd, Kodambakkam vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 489/CHNY/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.489/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Transsys Solutions Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Director Of Plot. Super A 16-17, Rr Towers, Tvk Vs. Income Tax, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Cpc, Bengaluru 560 500. Chennai 600 032. [Pan:Aadct4603N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Pawan Bohra, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2022 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 21.09.2021 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 On 25.10.2019. The Cpc, Bengaluru Has Completed The Assessment Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Bohra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

…CIT(A) further noted the decisions in favour of assessee in para 7.7, and the same are as under: 1. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra) 2. CIT v. Aimil Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 508/188 Taxman 265 (Delhi); 16 I.T.A. No. 489/Chny/21 3. CIT v. NispoPolyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. V. CIT [2013] 215 Taxman 597/34 taxmann.com 20 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dug…

Commercial Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd., Allahabad vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 15/ALLD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad20 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh.S K Jaiswal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…CIT v. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Limited v. 366 ITR 1(Bom.) 2. CIT v. Aimil Ltd. [2010] 188 Taxman 265/321 1TR 508 (Delhi HC) 3. Pr. CIT v. Planman HR (P) Ltd, [IT Appeal No. 170 of 2018, dated 12.02.2018 (Delhi HC) 4. CIT v. Nipso Ployfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327 (HP) 5. Sagun Foundry (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2017] 78 taxmann.com 47 (All) 6. CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd.[2014] 366 ITR163/[2013] 217 Taxman 64 (Mag.)/35 taxmann.com 616 (Raj.) 7. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar) 8. CIT v. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P.) Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 163/[2013]217 Taxman 207/37 taxmann.com 16…

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

…to refer to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court referred to by the assessee in the specific ground No. 2 raised in the present appeal wherein the decision of the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs Nipso Polyfabrika Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327 has been relied upon. The said decision, it is seen, specifically deals with the employees’ contribution. Their Lordships relying upon decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306 (which was in the context of employers’ contribution) referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case…

Day N Day Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 425/CHNY/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 424 & 425/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri H. Surendar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Addl.CIT
Section 113Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ursuance of Sec. 43B. The CIT(A) further noted the decisions in favour of assessee in para 7.7, and the same are as under: 1. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra) 2. CIT v. Aimil Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 508/188 Taxman 265 (Delhi); 3. CIT v. NispoPolyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. V. CIT [2013] 215 Taxman 597/34 taxmann.com 20 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dug…

Day N Day Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC - 1(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 424/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 424 & 425/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri H. Surendar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Addl.CIT
Section 113Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ursuance of Sec. 43B. The CIT(A) further noted the decisions in favour of assessee in para 7.7, and the same are as under: 1. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra) 2. CIT v. Aimil Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 508/188 Taxman 265 (Delhi); 3. CIT v. NispoPolyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. V. CIT [2013] 215 Taxman 597/34 taxmann.com 20 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dug…