Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 2100 - AT - Income TaxCharacterization of income - interest subsidy received by the assessee under Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme of the Government of India - capital receipt or revenue receipt - HELD THAT:- We find that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)’s observation is correct that the TUFs subsidy is to enhance the technology apparatus of the companies in the textile industry operating in India. As rightly held by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), identical issues have been decided in favour of the assessee by SHAM LAL BANSAL [2011 (1) TMI 409 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] holding that the interest subsidy as capital receipt and not a revenue receipt - Accordingly, respectfully following the precedent, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Accordingly, we uphold the same. Addition u/s 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(l)(va) - assessee has not paid the employees' contribution to the Provident Fund within the time allowed under the P.F. Act. - HELD THAT:- Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) noted that the employees contribution to the provident fund though paid after the due date as specified in P.F. Act but was paid before the due date, i.e., the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this regard, he referred to the decision of Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2014 (3) TMI 386 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] - Accordingly, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) decided the issue in favour of the assessee.Upon hearing both the counsel and perusing the records, we find that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee.
|