Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 94 - AT - Income TaxDeletion of deposits made in PF/ESI payment beyond prescribed time – As per section 36(1)(va) employees contribution should have been deposited in time as prescribed – Held that:- CIT(A) rightly was of the view that the assessee made payment before due date of return – assessee relied upon CIT Vs. Udaipur Dugdh Udpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. [2014 (8) TMI 677 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] - the assessee has paid employees’ contribution towards ESI paid before due date of return, therefore, it is allowable - the assessee should have paid this amount before due date of return, is allowable u/s 43B – the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against revenue. Payment made for transmission/wheeling/SLDC charges to RRVPN – Applicability of section 40(a)(ia) - Technical services or not – Liability to deduct TDS u/s 194J – Held that:- As decided in assessee’s own case for the earlier assessment year, it has been held that all the parties involved with generation, transmission and distribution of electricity are to comply with the direction of State Load Dispatch center and the Regulatory commission for achieving the economy and efficiency in the operation of power system and therefore question of any person rendering service to another does not arise - The operation and maintenance of transmission lines by RVPNL and the user of these lines by assessee for transmitting energy does not result into any technical services being rendered to the assessee - The technical staff of RVPN by operating and maintaining its grid station and transmission lines simply discharge thereon functioning - They do not render any technical service to the assessee – the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against revenue. Deletion of front end fees to HUDCO for raising loan – Revenue expenses or not – Held that:- CIT(A) rightly was of the view that front end fees had been paid to HUDCO in connection with the money borrowed - There was no extension of the existing business, therefore, proviso to Section 36(i)(iii) of the Act is not applicable - The revenue expenditure, which was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business could be allowed in its entirety in the year in which it was incurred - It could not be spread over in number of years, even if the assessee had written it off in his books over a period of years - assessee has raised loan of ₹ 300 crores for improvement in transmission, network and infrastructure - The assessee paid this amount to HUDCO, which was pre-decided condition on the loan sanctioned – thus, the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against revenue.
|