Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 1812 - ITAT DELHIDeduction u/s 80IC - claim denied as work of printing was not carried out at the premises of the assessee in the notified area for the purpose of Section 80IC - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2019 (7) TMI 535 - ITAT DELHI] Once the deduction u/s 80IC of the Act is allowed in the ‘initial assessment year’ i.e. in the AY 2010-11 after due verification of the prescribed conditions and there is no change in the facts, then the deduction cannot be disallowed in subsequent years on the ground of non-fulfillment of conditions laid down in section 80-IC of the Act. This view has been fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Tata Communication Internet Servicse Ltd. [2011 (8) TMI 633 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee TDS u/s 194H - Disallowance of Trade discount u/s 40(a)(ia) - not deducting the tax at source on the commission payment made under the guise of “Trade Discount” - ‘trade discount’ OR ‘commission' - HELD THAT:- In the case of Skol Breweries [2013 (10) TMI 416 - ITAT MUMBAI] as held that when a purchase / sales is made at discounted price, it is called discount but when an incentive is given for undertaking task / job/ services provided or on sale of goods by one person on behalf of other, then it is commission. Since the benefit given by the assessee to M/s S. Chand Co. Ltd. was in the nature of ‘trade discount’ and not ‘commission’, therefore, the assessee was not required to deduct income tax at source u/s. 194H of the Act, thus, no disallowance can be made u/s. 40(a)(ia) - Decided in favour of the assessee. Disallowance for delay in deposit of Employees Contribution to PF - due date of filing of return of income - HELD THAT:- The employees contribution to EPF was deposited well before the due date of filing of return of income. The assessee has explained the circumstances in which such delay has been occurred. Thus, relying on the judgment of CIT vs. Vinay Cement Ltd. [2007 (3) TMI 346 - SC ORDER] and CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. [2009 (12) TMI 38 - DELHI HIGH COURT] the addition was rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A), which does not need any interference on our part, therefore, we uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and reject the ground raised by the Revenue.
|