Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 2079 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 36(1)(va) - disallowance as assessee had not deposited the Employees Contribution to EPF, ESI and labour welfare fund within the prescribed due date although the payment was made before the due date of filing of the return - HELD THAT:- After hearing the Ld. representatives of the parties, we noted that the Ld. CIT(A) inter alia has followed the decision in the case of ‘CIT Vs. Hernia Embroidery Mills (P) Ltd.’[2013 (2) TMI 41 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] which has further followed the decision in the case of ‘CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd.[2009 (11) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT] We find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and the same is, therefore, upheld. Disallowance of ‘bank charges’ - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has considered the explanation of the assessee that bank charges were incurred to process the Working Capital Loan Application of the assessee. These facilities were used to meet the day to day requirement of the funds for the business of the company. CIT(A) considering the submissions and further relying upon his decision for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 on this issue, has held that the same was not a capital expenditure but was Revenue expenditure. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue also and the same is accordingly upheld. Addition u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - assessee has submitted that the total disallowance made during the year u/s 14A read with rule 8D(2)(iii) has exceeded the total dividend income earned by the assessee during the year - HELD THAT:- Considering the above submissions, the decision of ‘CIT, Faridabad Vs. Lakhani Marketing Inc. [2014 (7) TMI 44 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] and .‘Cheminvest Ltd Vs. ITO’ [2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] are squarely applicable, wherein, it has been held that the disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed the total exempt income earned by the assessee during the year. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and the same is upheld. Addition u/s 36(i)(iii) - Interest on investment in sister concerns - HELD THAT:- CIT-A correctly deleted addition by the Ld. CIT(A) observing that assessee had made investment in shares of its sister concern out of his own funds and that no borrowed funds were used for making such investment.
|