Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 1411 - AT - Income TaxDeduction of Employees Contribution to PF - whether same was paid after due date and hence to be treated as income u/s.2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act - Held that:- Issue in dispute is suqarely covered against the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported at (2014 (1) TMI 502 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ) wherein held that if the assessee failed to deposit the amounts representing employees’ contribution to PF & ESI accounts within the time limit prescribed under these Acts, then assessee will not be entitled for deduction. - Decided against revenue Addition u/s.40A(2)(b) - Held that:- The payment of interest at a little higher rate to the persons even if covered u/s.40A(2)(b) cannot be termed as exorbitant when the fair market value of such interest cost is being considered. The assessee has paid interest commensurate with the interest rate prevailing in the open market. An order in case of Vipul Y. Mehta vs. ACIT [2010 (7) TMI 1051 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] has been brought to our notice, wherein Tribunal has upheld the allowance of the interest rate @ 18% per annum to the relatives on unsecured loan. Considering all these aspects, we are of the view that ld. First Appellate Authority has appreciated the controversy in right perspective. Assessee has not extended any undue benefit to the persons covered u/s.40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act.- Decided against revenue Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - Held that:- First Appellate Authority has recorded a finding of fact that assessee is not the share holder of both the companies. The ld. CIT(A) has followed the decision of Special Bench of ITAT in case of ACIT vs. Bhaumik Colour Pvt. Ltd. [2008 (11) TMI 273 - ITAT BOMBAY-E ]. Hon’ble Delhi High Court has also held in case of CIT vs. Ankitech (P.) Ltd. in [2011 (5) TMI 325 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] that the assessee should be a share holder in the lender company and such holding should be more than 10% of the voting rights, only then Section 2(22)(e) would be attracted. CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition - Decided against revenue
|