CIT v. Vinay Cements Ltd.

213 CTR 268Supreme Court of India2007#171 most cited

What is CIT v. Vinay Cements Ltd. authority for?

Employees' contributions to provident fund and ESI are allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) if deposited by the assessee before the due date for filing the income tax return.

422

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Vinay Cements Ltd. · Vinay Cements SC · employees contribution PF ESI · Section 36(1)(va) · Section 2(24)(x) · belated deposit ESI EPF · deduction allowability · due date filing return · penalty Section 270A

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Vinay Cements Ltd.

Cogwheel Facility Management Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1838/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2018-19 Cogwheel Facility Management Pvt. Vs Dcit, Ltd., J-128/1, 2Nd Floor, Cpc, Mohammadpur Village, Bangalore. Near Bhikaji Cama Place, Rk Puram, New Delhi. Pan: Aagcc1517K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : .02.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27Th August, 2020 Of The Cit(A)-2, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. That The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Order Of The Ao, Passed Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.23,55,432/- Made By Ao By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 36(1)(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 3. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Ignoring The Well- Established Judicial Pronouncements Including That Of The Jurisdictional High Court. 4. That The Impugned Appellate Order Is Arbitrary, Illegal, Bad In Law & The Violation Of Rudimentary Principle Of Contemporary Jurisprudence. 5. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter, Vary And/Or Withdraw Any Or All The Above Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Ruchesh Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ive Statutory Acts. The appellant has analyzed the various sections pertaining to sections 43B, scope of 143(l)(a), 36(l)(va) etc., alongwith the following judicial decisions :- i) CIT vs. Kichha Sugar Company Ltd. (Uttarakhand) ii) CIT vs. Vinay Cement Ltd., 213 CTR 268 (SC) iii) CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. & Anrs., 321 ITR 508 iv) CIT vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd., 319 ITR 306 2 4.1 The submissions made by the appellant needs to be evaluated in the context of legal provisions laid down in the Act. The same are enumerated hereunder:- 4.1.1 The legal provision > Section 36(1)(va) deals with deduction in respect of the sum rece…