Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 640 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of deduction u/s 43B - employees’ contribution to the Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF)/ Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) deposited beyond the due date - HELD THAT:- With respect to the employees contribution received by the assessee if the assessee has not credited the said sum to the employees’ account in the relevant fund or funds on or before the due date mentioned in explanation to section 36(1) (va), the assessee shall not be entitled to deduction of such amount in computing the income referred to in section 28 of the Act. Therefore, there is no merit in this ground of appeal assessee. In the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. [2014 (1) TMI 502 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and M/s.Checkmate Facility & Electronics Solutions P.Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2018 (10) TMI 994 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] wherein it is held that the employees’ contribution to the Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF)/ Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) deposited beyond the due date prescribed under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 would not be eligible for deduction under section 43B of the Act, even if deposited before the due date of filing the tax return - Decided against assessee. Disallowance on account of expenditure on consultancy and legal fees - As per AO since the transaction entered under “Preparation of Amalgamation of MRPL with MIP” and “Lawyers’ fees for Merger” which itself explains that the said expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of amalgamation or demerger of an undertaking, and therefore section 35DD is applicable - HELD THAT:- The concurrent findings of Revenue authorities that purpose for which the expenditure was incurred is specific and the claim of expenditure against Tax Consultancy under the column “Transaction Text” of ledger of Transactions, the term “Preparation of Amalgamation of MRPL with MIP” and “Lawyer fees for Merger” respectively mentioned, were not successfully rebutted by the assessee before us also. This treatment and classification of the said expenditure in the accounting transaction by the assessee clearly shows that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of amalgamation or demerger which would attract provisions of section 35DD. Before us also, the assessee cannot better its case, and rather simply reiterated the submissions as were made before the lower authorities. Therefore, for the reasons discussed in the orders of the Revenue authorities, and the very premise on which the Assessing Officer denied the claim of the Assessee is found to be factually tenable and hence, invocation of provision under section 35DD of the Act cannot be said to be incorrect and unjustified. - Decided against assessee.
|