|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 1545 Records
-
2017 (2) TMI 1449 - ITAT CHENNAI
TP Adjustment - comparable selection - Functional dissimilarity - HELD THAT:- Assessee company is engaged in the manufacture of tube pipes automatic components and tubular products primarily in the auto industry thus companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list.
TPO not considered the Forex loss as non-operative in nature while calculating the operative margin of the company - HELD THAT:- Foreign exchange loss or gain due to reinstatement of balance outstanding at the end of the year cannot be held as operating profit/loss since the same is on account of notional loss to comply with the accounting standards. With regard to the foreign exchange loss incurred in business operations for purchase of materials or for international transaction do not give any extra benefit to the AE who supplies the material, since the AE receives the payment in foreign exchange and the assessee also makes the payment in foreign exchange. The loss was due to exchange difference between the foreign currency and the Indian currency. Therefore, while computing the PLI, operating income for the purpose of PLI, both foreign exchange loss or gain should be excluded from the operating income. The DRP has allowed loss on Forex to exclude from the operating income, relying on the safe Harbour Rules which provide for exclusion of Forex loss from operating expenses. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the directions given by the DRP to exclude both foreign exchange loss or gain of the tested party as well as comparables from the operating income. This ground of Revenue is dismissed.
Working capital adjustment - Assessee has not furnished the pricing model and reasons for extending extraordinary credit to its clients. Similarly the assessee did not furnish the pricing models of the comparable companies as well as the AE. The terms and conditions of sale and interest clause if any require verification - HELD THAT:- The issue of working capital adjustment requires verification of facts from the assessment records of the assessee and the data of comparables companies in the light of discussion made above. Therefore, we remit the matter back to the file of the AO to examine the assessee’s claim of working capital adjustment on facts and make appropriate adjustment on facts and merits. It is needless to say that the Assessing Officer should give opportunity to the assessee to present the case. This ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Idle capacity utilization - HELD THAT:- The assessee has not furnished the details of installed capacity and capacity utilized and the reasons for non-utilization of the installed capacity and resources available and utilized by the assessee. Similarly, the assessee has also not furnished the details of the comparable companies installed capacity and utilized capacity and the levels of break even. In the absence of reasons for non-utilization of installed capacity the claim for capacity adjustment is unfounded. The assessee claimed to be in the second year of operation but furnished the details in respect of sales to fixed costs which is insufficient information to decide whether installed capacity was due to start ups or not. The assessee did not explain the reasons for non-utilization of optimum capacity and therefore, this objection of the assessee cannot be accepted and the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of M/s.Mando India Steering Systems Pvt. Ltd., [2015 (4) TMI 176 - ITAT CHENNAI] is not applicable and this ground is dismissed.
Selection of Armtek Ltd as comparable - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the assessee is following accounting year from April to March and the comparable company M/s.Amtek Ring Gears Ltd., is following June, 2008 to June, 2009. Once, the company is following a different accounting year, there will be a wide range effects in the operating results and the company seized to be a good comparable. The AO has not reconciled the financials of the comparable company to the corresponding period of the tested party by collecting necessary information and re-casted the financials. Therefore, we direct the AO to exclude the M/s.Amtek Ring Gears Ltd., as comparable. This ground of Cross-Objection of the assessee is allowed.
RPT filter - HELD THAT:- TPO has applied the RPT filter of 25% and the assessee objected for restricting it to 25%. The DRP has rejected the assessee’s objection on the ground that the 25% has become more or less acceptable and it gets support from the fact that 26% is a threshold limit for treating the company as AE u/s.92A. Similarly, Sec.40A(2)(b) treats 20% as the threshold limit for having substantial interest in the company. Therefore, the DRP held the application of 25% is reasonable. No argument has been made by the assessee on this ground and we consider that as per the reasoning given by the DRP for application of 25, application of RPT appears to be reasonable and this ground is dismissed.
Not considering the fresh set of comparables submitted by the assessee for bench marking the margins - HELD THAT:- DRP has rejected the objection of the assessee stating that the additional set of companies were nothing but cherry picked by the Ld.AR without proper objectives and analysis. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR did not place any additional information except reiterating the submissions made before the DRP. The Ld.AR has not placed TP analysis and the FAR analysis and the financials of the additional comparables before the tribunal. Therefore, we uphold the directions of the DRP and this ground of the appeal is dismissed.
-
2017 (2) TMI 1448 - SC ORDER
Transfer of right to use - service contract of directional drilling - VAT or service tax - it was held by High Court that the transactions do not amount to sale within the meaning of the TVAT Act, 2004 - HELD THAT:- No ground is made out to interfere in these matters - Appeal dismissed.
-
2017 (2) TMI 1447 - ITAT CHENNAI
Disallowance on account of replacement of machineries and parts of the machineries - current repairs - HELD THAT:- Assessee admittedly incurred an expenditure in replacement of blow room machinery, carding machinery, draw frame, speed frame and compressor. The Apex court while considering the case of the spinning mill in Saravana Spinning Mills [2007 (8) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT] found that the machineries in a segment of textile mill has an independent role to play. Therefore, it has to be construed as independent machinery.
The question arises for consideration is when there was a replacement of certain machinery in the textile mill, can we say that there was a enduring benefit to the assessee especially when the production activity remains as such. As rightly submitted by the assessee, the production capacity of the spinning mill would always depending upon the number of spindles installed in the spinning mill. In the case before us, no spindles were replaced. What was replaced is only blow room machinery, carding machine, draw frame, speed frame and compressor. Therefore, we can safely conclude that there was increase in production capacity of the spinning mill after the replacement of the above machinery.
Merely because certain machineries were replaced, it could not automatically result in increase in production capacity. It has to be demonstrated that due to change of machinery or replacement of machinery, the production capacity in fact actually increased. Merely because there was efficiency in running the machinery, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that alone cannot be a reason to disallow the claim of the assessee. Unless and until, the assessee replaces the machinery, it may not be able to run the spinning mill at all. Maintenance of machinery in the course of manufacturing activity is one of the requirements, if the assessee intends to continue in the business. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that unless and until the production capacity was increased, the expenditure incurred by the assessee has to be allowed as current repair. Decided in favour of assessee
-
2017 (2) TMI 1446 - ITAT KOLKATA
TP Adjustment - transfer price determined by the TPO as per Cost Plus Method and in its place applying the Resale Price Method - HELD THAT:- There is merit in the submissions of the assessee that method adopted by the ld. CIT(A) to compute ALP neither falls in CPM Method nor in RPM Method. The Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal-Kolkata, in the appeal No. [2008 (4) TMI 340 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A] in the case of the assessee for assessment years 2003-04 & 200405, had concluded that in relation to the engineering drawing and design services rendered by the assessee to its associated enterprise DClL, the DClL should retain the gross margins as determined through the benchmarking exercise.
In any event the ld CIT(A) can not apply his own method except the method given in Rule 10B (1) (b) of the I.T. Rules. However, for difference in accounting period the TPO/AO may examine the figures for the period January 2005 to March 2005.
As per the additional evidence produced by the ld AR for the assessee, before us, (financials of DCIL from January 2005 to March 2005), since these figures of financials of DCIL from January 2005 to March 2005 were not available before the TPO/AO. Therefore, for difference in accounting period, the TPO/AO may examine the figures for the period January 2005 to March 2005 of DCIL. Therefore, we direct the TPO/AO to examine the figures of the financials of DCIL for the period January 2005 to March 2005 and compute the ALP as per the method suggested by the Hon`ble ITAT in assessee`s own case and submitted by the assessee before us. We direct TPO/AO only to examine the figures of the financials of DCIL from January 2005 to March 2005, and if he finds the figures of the financials of DCIL true and correct, he should accept the computation of the assessee as furnished by the assessee before us, which is reproduced by us above.
Therefore, based on the factual position, we direct the AO/TPO to accept the computation as given before us, (after verification of figures of January 2005 to March 2005), which is based on the method accepted by the Hon`ble ITAT, Kolkata in assessee`s own case.
-
2017 (2) TMI 1445 - ITAT MUMBAI
Condonation of the delay - inordinate delay of 3389 days - Sufficient cause of delay - HELD THAT:- In this case there has been inordinate delay of about 10 years in filing the appeal. Firstly, the assessee had submitted that it was an inadvertent error. In another affidavit assessee had tried to submit that appeal papers were prepared but were not filed without any reason by the Charted Accountant. The submission is not supported for its veracity or reasoning. Furthermore, there is no rationale in allowing a person to file an appeal after ten years simply because ten years ago also he had thought of filing the appeal. There can be many reasons why a person having thought of filing an appeal may decide not to pursue the matter. Hence the contents of the second submission cannot be treated but as an afterthought.
In our considered opinion the delay of 3389 days doesn't deserve to be condoned. Accordingly, we decline to condone the delay.
-
2017 (2) TMI 1444 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Exemption u/s 11 - registration u/s 12A once granted could not be reviewed or withdrawn in the absence of stipulation to the effect in Section 12AA(3) - HELD THAT:- We have today by our order in Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs. North Indian Association - [2017 (3) TMI 37 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein held that Income is brought to tax to secure the Revenue's interest but it does not necessarily result in automatic cancellation of Registration. Therefore, the mere fact that in one particular year, the respondent assessee may have income receipts in excess of ₹ 10 lakhs or such other limit as provided in the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act, that by itself would not warrant cancellation of the registration under Section 12AA(3) of the Act . No substantial question of law.
-
2017 (2) TMI 1443 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Dishonor of cheque - Wilful Defaulters - vicarious liability in case of a company or firm under Section 141, NI Act - HELD THAT:- The Petitioner was appointed as an independent non executive nominee director in 2009 and he subsequently resigned from the company in the year 2015. In terms of Section 149(12) of the Companies Act, 2013 he shall be held liable, only in respect of such acts of omission or commission by the company which had occurred with his knowledge or consent or connivance or where he had not acted diligently attributable through Board processes. Thus specific averments are required to be made in the complaint to show that the offence was committed with the knowledge/ consent/ connivance of the Petitioner.
Merely because the petitioner is the Director of Sequoia India Investment Holding which finances Vasan Health Care and by virtue thereof is a nominee independent director of Vasan Health Care, he cannot be held to be responsible for the day-to-day affairs of Vasan Health Care. Even otherwise the contentions now raised during the course of arguments and in the reply affidavits are not part of the complaints - Admittedly, the petitioner is not the Managing Director of Vasan Health Care nor the signatory to the cheque. He is also not the person responsible for day-to-day functioning of Vasan Health Care. No vicarious liability can be fastened on the petitioner in the absence of specific role being attributed to the petitioner.
Petition allowed.
-
2017 (2) TMI 1442 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance of interest expenses - AO disallowed the entire interest expenditure stating that the related borrowings are not incurred for business purposes - AO invoked the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) and 57(iii) - HELD THAT:- CIT (A) granted relief to the assessee complying with the directions of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the earlier AY 2011-12. CIT (A) gave finding and there is no change on the facts. Considering the above, the decision of the CIT (A) is fair and reasonable and it does not call for any interference. Accordingly, solitary ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2017 (2) TMI 1441 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Application for registration u/s 12AA rejected - HELD THAT:- The assessee filed, inter alia, a copy of the Registration Certificate dated 11.07.2000, issued by the ld. CIT, granting registration to the assessee u/s 12A(a) of the Act, w.e.f. 01.04.1998. In the Synopsis filed before us, as well as in the arguments made, the assessee has stated that admittedly, this Certificate could not be filed before the ld. CIT(E).
In the interest of justice, we remit this matter to the ld. CIT(E), to re-decide the assessee’s application after taking into consideration the above Certificate. The assessee, no doubt, shall co-operate in the fresh proceedings before the ld. CIT(E) and all pleas available to the assessee under the law shall remain so available to it.
-
2017 (2) TMI 1440 - ITAT CHENNAI
Revision u/s 263 - disallowance on account of diversion of interest bearing funds to group concerns - HELD THAT:- Admittedly the interest paid by the assessee on borrowings used for the purpose of the business to be allowed as deduction while computing the income of assessee. The interest received by the assessee cannot be set off against the interest paid by the assessee. The interest paid and claimed as a deduction in the computation of profits and gains of the business, cannot be set off against interest received under the head “income from other sources”. So that while computing the disallowance of interest on money advanced to group concern, the gross interest to be considered and proportionate interest disallowance to be worked out, being so, the CIT justified in giving the direction to the AO accordingly.
Before us, ld.A.R submitted that interest disallowance by the Ld. CIT was a subject matter of the appeal. In this connection, it is to be noted that the entire assessment order cannot be said to have merged with appellate order. In view of Explanation-C to Sec.263(1) of the Act whereas the assessee had preferred an appeal only on certain points; CIT can revise the assessment order on the other points. The reliance was placed on the judgements of CIT Vs. Farida Prime Tannery in [1998 (4) TMI 26 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and Seshasayee Paper And Boards Limited [1998 (3) TMI 78 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and in the case of Soft Beverages P. Ltd. [2000 (12) TMI 80 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] . Hence, in our opinion, the concept of merger with the appellate order cannot be applied; therefore, Ld. CIT is well within his power in exercising revisional jurisdiction on this issue. This ground of assessee is rejected.
Disallowance of claim of deduction towards electricity and power generation tax u/s.43B - HELD THAT:- On this issue, in our opinion, electrical tax and power generation tax is statutory liability which requires to be paid before the due date of filing of return of income and as such provisions of the section 43B is applicable and the Ld. CIT is justified in invoking the jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act to disallow the same. Hence, this ground stands rejected.
Claim of deduction u/s.35(2AB) - HELD THAT:- CIT has not withdrawn the claim of assessee u/s.35(2AB) of the Act. He has only remitted the issue back to the file of AO to examine the issue in accordance with law after providing an opportunity to the assessee. Since the AO allowed the deduction without examining the issue in proper sense and he has not made any enquiry on this issue, the order of the AO is very cryptic and is bad in law as the AO what is required to be looked into was not gone through by him. Hence, it makes the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Being so, the CIT is justified in invoking the provisions of the section 263
Corporate Debt Restructuring Mechanism - HELD THAT:- On account of upward revision of interest, the total liability came down by an amount of ₹ 4413.09 lakhs over the period of borrowals. For the assessment year under consideration, there was a deduction of interest to the tune of ₹ 1567.60 lakhs. The interest liability claimed and allowed in the assessment years during the period of borrowings, therefore, the interest reverse in the assessment year under consideration to be considered as income of assessee. However, the AO not considering the issue in proper perspective, hence, the CIT remitted the issue to the file of ld. Assessing Officer to examine the issue afresh after giving an opportunity to the assessee to produce the necessary details before the AO.
-
2017 (2) TMI 1439 - ITAT KOLKATA
Revision u/s 263 - MAT computation u/s 115JB - CIT was of the view that the aforesaid order of AO accepting the computation of book profits u/s.115JB as given by the assessee was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue - plea of the assessee was that while computing the book profit u/s 115JB the assessee need not exclude the income that arises out of tea manufacturing from tea leaves that are purchased - Whether sec 263 cannot be initiated on the basis of audit objection? - HELD THAT:- As decided in SOHANA WOOLLEN MILLS. [2006 (9) TMI 157 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] no rigid rule can be laid down and that facts of each case will have to be seen to come to a conclusion whether audit objection was sufficient to come to a conclusion that the order of the AO that is sought to be revised in exercise of powers u/s.263 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. On the facts of the present case, we are satisfied that the CIT applied his mind independently and that he had not proceeded purely on the basis of any audit objection. Therefore the preliminary objection raised by the Assessee in this regard is hereby rejected.
It is no doubt true that the assessee had income from growing, manufacturing and sale of tea as well as income from tea leaves purchased from third parties which were processed /manufactured and sold by the assessee. In so far as the first category of income is concerned, the same has to be regarded as part of the composite income for the purpose of applying Rule 8(1) of the Rules. In so far as the second category of income is concerned it cannot be regarded as part of the composite income under rule 8(1) of the Rules. This position has been accepted by the assessee itself in the computation of the total income under the normal provisions of the Act. We have referred to the computation of the total income by the assessee under the normal provisions of the Act in the earlier part of this order.
Whether the position will change when it comes to computation of book profit u/s 115JB ? - Section 115J of the Act, the CBDT in Circular No.495 dated 22.09.1987 has set out the manner of computation of book profits and composite income in the case of an Assessee to which Rule 8(1) of the Rules, for the purpose of Sec.115J of the Act. This tribunal in the case of M/s. Kanco Enterprises Ltd. [2015 (11) TMI 1135 - ITAT KOLKATA] has taken a view that the aforesaid circular would be applicable in the context of section 115JB of the Act also.
AO has to accept the profit as per the profit and loss account prepared in accordance with the companies Act and thereafter he can proceed to make the additions and deletions set out in the Explanation to Sec.115JB. He cannot make any adjustment which is not permitted under Explanation to Sec.115JB of the Act. The interpretation will equally apply to the provisions of Sec.115JB of the Act as well, as those provisions are identical to the provisions of Sec.115J of the Act with certain variations, which does not in any way alter the starting point of computation of book profit u/s.115J of the Act. If the CBDT Circular referred to above and the decision of Apollo Tyres [2002 (5) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT] are read together, the only conclusion that can be reached that the computation of book profit as done by the Assessee is correct and cannot be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
Similar computation has been accepted by the revenue even in A.Y.2012-13 to 2014-15. Orders of assessment for A.Y.2013-14 and 2014-15 have been passed after order passed u/s 263 of the Act. We therefore are of the view that the CIT was not justified in invoking the provision u/s 263 of the Act, in so far as it relates to determination of book profit u/s 115JB of the Act.
Invoking Sec.263 on the ground that income from sale of DEPB license ought to have been reduced from the profits eligible for deduction u/s 80IB and 80IE - Counsel had pointed out that there will be no prejudicial to the revenue in as much as tax liability of the assessee is being determined u/s 115 JB of the Act on book profits and therefore the computation of total income under the normal provisions of the Act will have no effect on the tax payable by the assessee. This has been accepted by the CIT in the impugned order in para-8 but nevertheless he has directed the AO to examine as to whether DEPB receipts were received in the course of business eligible for deduction u/s 80IB and 80IE of the Act respectively. In our view such an exercise will be futile when the admitted position is that even if such exercise turns out against the assessee that might not have any impact on the tax liability of the Assessee. In that sense the order of the AO cannot be termed as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The law is well settled that for invoking the provision of section 263 of the Act, the order sought to be revised ought to be both erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Since the condition that the order should be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue is not satisfied, the order of CIT u/s 263 in so far as it is concerns computation of deduction u/s 80IB and 80IE of the Act, cannot be sustained and the same is hereby quashed.
Disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) - Counsel fairly conceded that the action of CIT in the impugned order is justified. Hence the order of CIT to this extent is sustained. Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2017 (2) TMI 1438 - ITAT BANGALORE
TP Adjustment - comparable selection - HELD THAT:- Companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee providing software development services to the AE need to be deselected from final list.
Risk adjustment - It is seen from the observations of the TPO that the TPO is not against risk adjustment but it was not allowed for the reason of absence of proper basis of quantification. Now, that the assessee has given the basis of such quantification, the TPO /AO is directed to consider them in the light of this Tribunal decisions.
-
2017 (2) TMI 1437 - SC ORDER
Benefit of Notification No.8/2005 denied - as per department appellant should have discharged service tax on the electroplating cost including the cost of electroplating materials used by the appellant - HELD THAT:- The appeal is admitted.
-
2017 (2) TMI 1436 - ITAT CUTTACK
Penalty u/s. 271E - assessee has repaid loan/deposit in cash in contravention of the provisions of section 269T - HELD THAT:- As assessee has relied on the decision of OMEC Engineers [2007 (9) TMI 27 - HIGH COURT , JHARKHAND] wherein, it has been held that there being no finding of the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) or the Tribunal that the transaction made by the assessee in breach of provisions of section 269SS was not a genuine transaction, penalty u/s.271D is not leviable merely for technical mistake.
Similarly, in the present case also, we find that there is no finding of the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A) that the transactions in violation of section 269SS of the Act were not genuine. The assessee’s return has been accepted u/s.143(3) of the Act after scrutiny. There is no finding that the transactions were malafide aimed at disclosing concealed money. Therefore, we delete the levy of penalty u/s.271E - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2017 (2) TMI 1435 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Scheme of Amalgamation of Bandra Properties Private Limited ('BPPL' or 'the Transferor Company 1') and Bandra Construction Private Limited ('BCPL' or 'the Transferor Company 2') with Sunder Bhawar Holiday Homes Private Limited (Formerly known as 'Sheth Landmarks Private Limited') ('SBHPL' or 'the Transferee Company').
Directions issued for convening of meeting, service of notice and other procedures to be followed.
-
2017 (2) TMI 1434 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Scheme of Amalgamation of Bandra Properties Private Limited ('BPPL' or 'the Transferor Company 1') and Bandra Construction Private Limited ('BCPL' or 'the Transferor Company 2') with Sunder Bhawar Holiday Homes Private Limited (Formerly known as 'Sheth Landmarks Private Limited') ('SBHPL' or 'the Transferee Company').
Directions issued for convening of the meeting and procedure to be followed.
-
2017 (2) TMI 1433 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH
Scheme of Amalgamation of Bandra Properties Private Limited ('BPPL' or 'the Transferor Company 1') and Bandra Construction Private Limited ('BCPL' or 'the Transferor Company 2') with Sunder Bhawar Holiday Homes Private Limited (Formerly known as 'Sheth Landmarks Private Limited') ('SBHPL' or 'the Transferee Company').
Directions issued for convening of the meeting and procedure to be followed.
-
2017 (2) TMI 1432 - ITAT DELHI
Addition made u/s 40A(2)(b) - payment made to related party - HELD THAT:- As decided in KEC-Delco-Vraha (JV) [2016 (11) TMI 1642 - ITAT DELHI] disallowance under this section is made in respect of the expenses incurred or payments made which are not deductible. This section has no application to income aspect of the assessee. As the AO has made disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b) in respect of income which the assessee in his opinion ought to have earned rather than certain expenses incurred, the provisions of this section are not attracted. Uphold the impugned order on this score deleting the disallowance - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (2) TMI 1431 - SC ORDER
Levy of Education Cess and Higher Education Cess - appellant had already paid an amount of ₹ 298 crores under the enactment in issue - HELD THAT:- The respondent will not take any coercive steps to collect any further amount pursuant to the judgment under appeal.
List the appeal for hearing on 8th March, 2017.
-
2017 (2) TMI 1430 - ITAT MUMBAI
Entitled to claim deduction u/s 10A on the additions/disallowances made u/s 40(a) (ia) - HELD THAT:- Appellant is entitled to claim of deduction u/s 10A on an enhanced income. The appellant had relied on various other decisions and contended that deduction u/s 10A should be allowed on the income which was assessed to tax by the A.O after considering the allowance/disallowance made during the course of assessment proceedings as per the provisions of the I.T.Act. Therefore, the action of A.O in not considering the disallowance made u/s 40 a (ia) while computing the deduction u/s 10A is not correct and hence, the addition made is deleted.
In CIT vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. [2010 (6) TMI 65 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] one of the issues before the Hon’ble High Court was whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in directing the A.O to exempt u/s 10A of the Act, on the assessed income which was enhanced due to disallowance of the employers as well as the employees contribution towards Provident Fund/ESIC. - Decided in favour of assessee.
............
|
