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 366,470 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

Sections most often in play

Section 250Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 28Section 36(1)(va)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(24)(x)section 36(1)(va)section 36(1)section 36india

Judgments citing CIT v. Vinay Cements Ltd.

Balaji Motors, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 409/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

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

…ve PF/ESI Acts, however insofar as the Income Tax Act is concerned, the assessee can get the benefit of deduction if the actual payment is made before the return is filed as per the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinay Cements reported in 213 CTR 268 (SC). Therefore, according to Ld. A.R., since the later judgment of the Division Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Bharat Hotels Ltd.(supra) did not consider the Co-ordinate Bench decision as the case of CIT vs. Aimil Ltd. (supra) it cannot be a stare-decise. And moreover it is settled position of law that when there is conflict between two de…

D.P.Security & Allied Service, Kolkata vs. E-Assessment, Centralized Procesing Center, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 271/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

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

…ve PF/ESI Acts, however insofar as the Income Tax Act is concerned, the assessee can get the benefit of deduction if the actual payment is made before the return is filed as per the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinay Cements reported in 213 CTR 268 (SC). Therefore, according to Ld. A.R., since the later judgment of the Division Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Bharat Hotels Ltd.(supra) did not consider the Co-ordinate Bench decision as the case of CIT vs. Aimil Ltd. (supra) it cannot be a stare-decise. And moreover it is settled position of law that when there is conflict between two de…

Harenath Singh, Howrah vs. DCIT, CPC, Income Tax Department, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 219/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

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

…ve PF/ESI Acts, however insofar as the Income Tax Act is concerned, the assessee can get the benefit of deduction if the actual payment is made before the return is filed as per the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinay Cements reported in 213 CTR 268 (SC). Therefore, according to Ld. A.R., since the later judgment of the Division Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Bharat Hotels Ltd.(supra) did not consider the Co-ordinate Bench decision as the case of CIT vs. Aimil Ltd. (supra) it cannot be a stare-decise. And moreover it is settled position of law that when there is conflict between two de…

Shioji Singh HUF, Howrah vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 218/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

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

…ve PF/ESI Acts, however insofar as the Income Tax Act is concerned, the assessee can get the benefit of deduction if the actual payment is made before the return is filed as per the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinay Cements reported in 213 CTR 268 (SC). Therefore, according to Ld. A.R., since the later judgment of the Division Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Bharat Hotels Ltd.(supra) did not consider the Co-ordinate Bench decision as the case of CIT vs. Aimil Ltd. (supra) it cannot be a stare-decise. And moreover it is settled position of law that when there is conflict between two de…

A1 Force Security Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri vs. ACIT, Cir. -1, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 445/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

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

…ve PF/ESI Acts, however insofar as the Income Tax Act is concerned, the assessee can get the benefit of deduction if the actual payment is made before the return is filed as per the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinay Cements reported in 213 CTR 268 (SC). Therefore, according to Ld. A.R., since the later judgment of the Division Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Bharat Hotels Ltd.(supra) did not consider the Co-ordinate Bench decision as the case of CIT vs. Aimil Ltd. (supra) it cannot be a stare-decise. And moreover it is settled position of law that when there is conflict between two de…

M/S M.S.Sons J, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 44, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 344/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

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

…ve PF/ESI Acts, however insofar as the Income Tax Act is concerned, the assessee can get the benefit of deduction if the actual payment is made before the return is filed as per the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinay Cements reported in 213 CTR 268 (SC). Therefore, according to Ld. A.R., since the later judgment of the Division Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Bharat Hotels Ltd.(supra) did not consider the Co-ordinate Bench decision as the case of CIT vs. Aimil Ltd. (supra) it cannot be a stare-decise. And moreover it is settled position of law that when there is conflict between two de…

Art Rubber Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

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

…ve PF/ESI Acts, however insofar as the Income Tax Act is concerned, the assessee can get the benefit of deduction if the actual payment is made before the return is filed as per the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinay Cements reported in 213 CTR 268 (SC). Therefore, according to Ld. A.R., since the later judgment of the Division Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Bharat Hotels Ltd.(supra) did not consider the Co-ordinate Bench decision as the case of CIT vs. Aimil Ltd. (supra) it cannot be a stare-decise. And moreover it is settled position of law that when there is conflict between two de…

A.C.Paul Agricultural Co.(P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. ADIT, (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 319/KOL/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2021AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

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

…ve PF/ESI Acts, however insofar as the Income Tax Act is concerned, the assessee can get the benefit of deduction if the actual payment is made before the return is filed as per the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinay Cements reported in 213 CTR 268 (SC). Therefore, according to Ld. A.R., since the later judgment of the Division Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Bharat Hotels Ltd.(supra) did not consider the Co-ordinate Bench decision as the case of CIT vs. Aimil Ltd. (supra) it cannot be a stare-decise. And moreover it is settled position of law that when there is conflict between two de…

Nsib Security Services (P) Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 306/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

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

…ve PF/ESI Acts, however insofar as the Income Tax Act is concerned, the assessee can get the benefit of deduction if the actual payment is made before the return is filed as per the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinay Cements reported in 213 CTR 268 (SC). Therefore, according to Ld. A.R., since the later judgment of the Division Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Bharat Hotels Ltd.(supra) did not consider the Co-ordinate Bench decision as the case of CIT vs. Aimil Ltd. (supra) it cannot be a stare-decise. And moreover it is settled position of law that when there is conflict between two de…

Talbot and Co., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-40(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-

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

…ve PF/ESI Acts, however insofar as the Income Tax Act is concerned, the assessee can get the benefit of deduction if the actual payment is made before the return is filed as per the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinay Cements reported in 213 CTR 268 (SC). Therefore, according to Ld. A.R., since the later judgment of the Division Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Bharat Hotels Ltd.(supra) did not consider the Co-ordinate Bench decision as the case of CIT vs. Aimil Ltd. (supra) it cannot be a stare-decise. And moreover it is settled position of law that when there is conflict between two de…

Jiya Exim (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 251/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-

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

…ve PF/ESI Acts, however insofar as the Income Tax Act is concerned, the assessee can get the benefit of deduction if the actual payment is made before the return is filed as per the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinay Cements reported in 213 CTR 268 (SC). Therefore, according to Ld. A.R., since the later judgment of the Division Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Bharat Hotels Ltd.(supra) did not consider the Co-ordinate Bench decision as the case of CIT vs. Aimil Ltd. (supra) it cannot be a stare-decise. And moreover it is settled position of law that when there is conflict between two de…

DCIT, Circle- 10(2), New Delhi vs. Crescent Epc Projects and Technical Services Ltd. (Earlier Known As Gvk Projects and Technical Services Ltd.), Secunderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 399/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms. Chandani Shah, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Maninder Kaur, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)

…b.) 19-21 3- Harendra Nath Biswas vs DCIT 22-25 26-27 [2021] 128 taxmann.com 192 (Hyd. 4- Salzgitter Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO Trib.) Value Momentum Software Services Pvt. 5- 28-31 Ltd. vs DCIT 3 I.T.A. No.399/DEL/2019 6. CIT vs Vinay Cement Ltd. [2007] 213 CTR 268 (SC) 32 7. CIT vs AIMIL Ltd. [2010] 321ITR 508 (Del. HC) 33-38 39 8. PCIT vs Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt ITA No 983 of 2018 (Del. HC) Ltd. 9. Pawan Kumar vs ACIT 40-44 10. PPIT vs Planman HR Pvt Ltd 45-53 11. DCIT vs. Dee Development Engineers 54-61 Ltd. Azamgarh Steel & Power Pvt. Ltd. vs CPC 62-67 12. [2021] 129 taxmann.com 313 (…

Cybermate Infotek Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 2256/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14 Cybermate Infotek Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 1(4), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabcc 4776F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 24/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/09/2021

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 143(3)Section 37

…re paid before the due date of filing of return income u/s 139(1) of the Act, hence, disallowance is not warranted. He relied on the following cases: :- 6 -: BiologicHyderabad. 1. Usha Ltd. Vs. CIT, 184 Taxmann 83 (HC – Delhi) 2. Vinay Cement Ltd. Vs. CIT, 213 CTR 268 (SC) 3. CIT Vs. Lakhani Rubber Udyog Ltd. 184 Taxmann 236 (HC P&H). 7.4 The ld. DR, on the other hand relied on the orders of revenue authorities. 7.5 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record as well as gone through the orders of revenue authorities. The law is settled on this issue if the assessee has paid th…

Onward Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’ appeal stand partly allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 266/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.266/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1785/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Onward Technologies Limited Dcit-7(1) Sterling Centre, 2Nd Floor Room No.622, 6Th Floor बिाम/ Dr. Annie Besant Road Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Marg Vs. Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-3742-J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1793/Mum/2014 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dcit-7(1) Onward Technologies Limited Room No.622, 6Th Floor बिाम/ Sterling Centre, 2Nd Floor Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Marg Dr. Annie Besant Road Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Worli, Mumbai-400 018 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-3742-J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : S/Shri J.P. Bairagra & Ashish Bairagra - Ld. Ars Revenue By : Shri Manpreet S. Duggal- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 23/07/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 02/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: S/Shri J.P. Bairagra & Ashish Bairagra - Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri Manpreet S. Duggal- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 92Section 92B

…he decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V/s Aimil Ltd. (2010; 321 ITR 508). The Ld. AR has also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT V/s Rajasthan State Beverages Corp. Ltd. (84 Taxmann.com 185); CIT V/s Vinay Cement Ltd. (213 CTR 268) as well as the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd. (53 Taxmann.com 141). 21. We find that the assessee has deposited an amount of Rs.81.21 Lacs as employee’s contribution to PF and ESIC of Rs.0.08 Lacs. The 30 M/s Onward Technologies Limited Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 payment was made after due d…

M/S. Krishnae Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax -6, Pune

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

ITA 427/PUN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.427/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Krishnae Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 94A, Sangita Smriti, N T Wadi, Shivajinagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaeck1307M बनाम / V/S. Pr.Cit-6, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Deepak Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.06.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Validity Of The Order Passed By The Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-6, Pune (‘The Pcit’) Dated 12.03.2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’). 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Erred In Invoking The Provisions Of Section 263 & Passing The Order U/S.263 Which Is Without Jurisdiction & Ab Initio Bad In Law. Appellant Prays To Cancel The Same. 2. Pr. Cit Erred In Setting Aside The Order U/S. 143(3) By Stating That No Verification Was Made By A.O. Regarding Payment Of Employee’S Contribution To Pf/Esic Of Rs.10,71,494/-. However, A) Order U/S. 143(3) Is Limited Scrutiny, Not On This Issue. B) Supreme Court & Bombay High Court Held Employees Payment Before Due Date Of Filing Are Allowable. Appellant Prays To Cancel The Order Passed By Pr. Cit. 3. Appellant Prays To Add, Alter, Amend & / Or Withdraw The Ground/S As The Occasion May Demand During Appellate Proceedings.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…employee’s contribution to PF and ESCI was made within the due date for filing the return of income and, therefore, the same is allowable u/s 43B of the Act in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vinay Cement Limited, 213 CTR 268 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. AIMIC Limited, 188 Taxman 265 (Delhi) and also the decision of the Hon’ble 3 Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. GhatgePatil Transports Ltd., 368 ITR 749 (Bom). 5. On considering of the explanation of the appellant, the ld. PCIT was of the opinion that the…

Navigators Logistics Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-17(2), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5973/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Navigators Logistics Ltd, Vs. Acit, D-123, 3Rd Floor, Saket, New Circle-17(2), Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaccn0168R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Aman Preet, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(X)Section 36Section 43B

…e is required to be allowed as deduction in the year in which the payment is made or if paid before the due date of filing of the return in the assessment year two it belongs to. The assessee contested that in view of the decision of the CIT Vs. Vinay Cements 213 CTR 268 and CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions 319 ITR 306. Thus the contention of the assessee the about disallowance cannot be made. The ld AO rejected the contention of the assessee and stated that due date means the date for deposit of the above contribution is the dates mentioned in the respective PF and State Insurance Act. Undisputedly, the assessee did not…

A. Menarini India Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2423/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2423/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Written submissionsFor Respondent: Shri Shaurya S. Shukla, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 28Section 35DSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…employees’ contribution of PF was not deposited within the due date, but the same was deposited before the date of filing of the return, and therefore, as per the decision of CIT Vs. Rajasthna state Beverages Corpn.and CIT Vs. Vinay Cement, Company Ltd., (SC) 213 CTR 268, payment of employees’ contribution of PF before the due date of filing of the return of income shall not be disallowed and added to the income under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. However, the ld.AO did not accept this submission of the assessee, and relying on the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gujarat State…

Continental Construction Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4710/DEL/2010[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2020AY 1995-96

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri P. Maharishi & Vs Continental Construction Acit, Ltd, 28, Nehru Place, Circle – 3(1), New Delhi – 110019. Room No.390, C.R. Building, (Pan: Aaacc 2309 R) Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) & Vs Acit, Continental Construction Ltd, Circle – 3(1), 28, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110019. Room No.390, C.R. (Pan: Aaacc 2309 R) Building, Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Subodh Gupta, Fca Respondent By Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing 14.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 23.09.2020

…y the assessee company for the employer’s contribution to the P.F. as per the provisions of Sec 43B if the same is deposited prior to the due date mentioned in the respective statute as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of CIT v. Vinay Cement Ltd. [2007] 213 CTR 268 (SC) and CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC). Ground No. 7 of the Assessee’s appeal is allowed. 34. In result, appeal being ITA No. 2199/Del/2005 for A.Y. 2001-02 filed by the assessee is partly allowed. 35. As regards to ITA No. 2200/Del/2005 filed by the Revenue for A.Y. 2001-02 is concerned, Ground No. 1 is already decided in…

I.T.O. Ward -3(4), Nagpur vs. M/S Deepak Construction, Nagpur

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

ITA 187/NAG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.187/Nag/2015 ननिाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Nagpur. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Deepak Construction New Bhanegaon, Khaparkheda, Saoner, Nagpur- 441102. Pan: Aadfd4092L ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri U.U. Kesar
Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

…tified in view of amendment made in section 43 B by Finance Act,2003 by omitting second proviso and interpretation of said amendment in the following judicial pronouncement:- CIT Vs. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD. (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC).CIT Vs. VINAY CEMENT LTD.(2007) 213 CTR 268 (SC),CIT Vs. GEORGE WILLAMSON (ASSAM) LTD.(2006) 284 ITR 619 (GAU.) & CIT Vs. AIMIL LTD. & ORS. (2010) 321 ITR 508 (DEL.) ; (Copies of decisions are enclosed) It is therefore, your honour is kindly requested to delete the disallowance of EPF of Rs.1,24,444/- and oblige.” 7. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) after considering the submissions of the assessee,…

DCIT - 8(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Philips Medical Systems India P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 4114/MUM/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2018AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

….F. and Pension Fund respectively, it is observed that the same are squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Alom’s Extrusions Limited [185 Taxman 416] and CIT –vs.- Vinay Cement Limited [213 CTR 268], wherein it was held that the employer’s/employees contribution towards Provident Fund and Pension Fund paid before the due date of filing of the return of income for the relevant year cannot be disallowed under section 43B, even if it has been paid after the due date as per relevant Acts. Respectfully following the said decision of the Hon’ble…