Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 1427 - ITAT CHENNAIDisallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) qua the employee’s contribution to the employee welfare funds, being the provident fund and state insurance funds - Held that:- Each of the contributions constituting the impugned sum in the present case is deposited beyond the due date defined in Explanation below s. 36(1)(va) and, thus, not deductible there-under. On the contrary, s. 36(1)(va) also providing the condition of payment, and one which is more stringent than that by s. 43B, a fact of which the Legislature could not but be aware of, is one more reason for regarding the employee’s contribution as separate and distinct from the employee’s contribution and, accordingly, not covered by s. 43B. We have already shown a difference in the nature of the two sums as well as the clear manner of the different descriptions adopted by law to identify them. There is no mandate in law for disregarding the same; rather, stands explained per different decisions, several of which stand cited supra. We decide accordingly. Disallowance u/s. 14A - Held that:- The assessee having earned tax exempt dividend income at . 54,501/-. The AO observed an average investment of ₹ 32.27 lacs in shares and units, besides inflow and outflow of funds, so that expenditure on its management would have been incurred, i.e., besides a proportionate interest expenditure, incurred at a total ₹ 1.72 lacs. As no explanation for not effecting any suo motu disallowance u/s. 14A was forthcoming from the assessee, he, applying r. 8D, disallowed ₹ 26,112/-, including ₹ 9,976/- u/r. 8D(2)(ii) qua indirect interest expenditure, and the balance qua indirect, administrative expenditure. The same stands confirmed in first appeal on the same basis. No improvement in its case having been made before us, we confirm the same. We decide accordingly.
|