Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2016 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 1326 - HC - Income TaxPrivilege fee - whether is in the nature of revenue expenditure and deductible expenditure under Section 37(1)? - Held that:- Taking into consideration all the facts and in particular the provisions of the Excise Act, in our view, the Tribunal was correct in holding the said expenditure of privilege fee as allowable expenditure and thus the said question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Excise duty addition to closing stock - applicably of provisions of section 145A - Held that:- The liability to excise arises when goods are removed from the factory/bonded warehouse. The taxable event is manufacture/ production but the liability to pay the duty is postponed till the time of removal under Rule 9A. In our view, under Section 145A only the tax duty, cess or fees actually paid or incurred by the assessee to bring the goods to its place of location forms part value of stock. Unpaid excise duty on goods in stock that have not left the premises/factory/bonded warehouse, could not be added to the value of closing stock. We have taken into consideration the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Wallace Flour Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise (1979 (9) TMI 70 - SUPREME Court ) and CIT Vs. Dynavision Ltd. [2012 (9) TMI 265 - SUPREME COURT] to come to the aforesaid opinion. In fact, even the Revenue has relied upon the judgment of Wallace Flour Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise (supra) but in our view, taking into consideration the view of the Apex Court that a taxable event though is manufacture but the liability to pay duty is postponed till the time of removal under Rule 9A of the said Rules and admittedly, there is a finding of fact recorded by the authorities that the goods were lying in the bonded warehouse/factory and had not come out of the bonded warehouse/factory, in our view, the judgment of Wallace Flour Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise (supra) supports the contention of the assessee rather than of the Revenue. - Decided in favour of the assessee Addition on account of depositing the PF/ESI payment beyond the prescribed time - Held that:- The issue is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. (2014 (5) TMI 222 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ) and CIT Vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangth Ltd.(2014 (8) TMI 677 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ) wherein, this Court, after taking into consideration the judgments of the Apex Court, has come to the conclusion that if PF/EPF/CPF/GPF etc., if paid after due date under the respective Act but before filing of the return of income under Section 139(1) of the IT Act, the same cannot be disallowed. - Decided in favour of the assessee.
|