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 82 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s.14A of Rule 8D - HELD THAT:- In case there is no exempt income, then no expenses could be considered for disallowance. In the present case, the ld.CIT(A) has held that the assessee has no exempt income in this year. In view of the above situation, we find that no merit in the first ground of appeal raised by the Revenue Addition u/s 14A while computing the book profit u/s. 115JB - HELD THAT:- In VIREET INVESTMENT (P.) LTD. [2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI] in the same set of facts the computation under clause (f) of explanation 1 to section 115JB as has been done by the authorities below u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Act, 1962 is not permissible and hence the Ld. CIT(A) deleted such disallowance without any ambiguity so as to warrant interference. Hence, this ground of appeal preferred by the Revenue is devoid of any merit and thus dismissed. This ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is thus allowed. Disallowance of Forex loss - HELD THAT:- As decided in ADANI LOGISTICS LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-1 (1) (1) , AHMEDABAD AND VICE-VERSA [2019 (3) TMI 1662 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] If we examine the order of the ld.CIT(A), then it would reveal that the ld.CIT(A) has examined the facts in right prospective while deleting the disallowance. The AO was of the view that such loss arose out of foreign currency loan acquired in respect of fixed assets. He failed to appreciate real transaction, and how the loss has been worked out by the assessee. In earlier year, the Tribunal has upheld deletion, and therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere in the order of the ld.CIT(A) - no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in favour of the assessee on the identical issue and hence, the same is hereby confirmed. Employees’ contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC Act not allowable u/s 36(1)(va) - HELD THAT:- It has already been decided by the jurisdictional High Court in the matter of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation that employees’ Provident Fund and ESIC welfare fund contribution is only allowable as a deduction Under Section 36 (1)(va) in the event if it is paid by the due date prescribed in the concerned Act. In that view of the matter the authorities below has disallowed such contribution made by the assessee. Argument has been advanced by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee that since the issue is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court this matter may be remitted to the Ld. AO for adjudication of the same afresh after the issue is decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court and, therefore, the order passed by the Co ordinate Bench has been relied upon. However, We find no such justification in passing such an order since the matter at the present moment is covered against the assessee
|