Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 827 - AT - Income TaxDelayed employee contribution of PF/ESI - Held that:- Admittedly the said employee contribution of PF/ESI was deposited before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the 1961 Act. Thus, keeping in view decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Limited [2014 (10) TMI 402 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] we allow this claim of the assessee. TDS u/s 194J - disallowance of professional fee paid as TDS not deposited by the assessee - Held that:- It is not clear that who were the payees to whom the assessee had made payment of ₹ 23,340/- on which income-tax was deducted at source u/s 194J. It is equally not available on record , the break-up payee wise of total professional fees paid by the assessee of ₹ 62,250/- and whether provisions of section 194J are hit or not as if the same payee is paid above threshold limit in aggregate in a year, the provisions of Section 194J read with Section 40(a)(ia) of the 1961 Act got hit. Thus, under these circumstances we are inclined to restore this issue back to the file of the AO and the assessee has to demonstrate the factual matrix on merits to take it out of clutches of provisions of Section 194J. The AO shall adjudicate this issue afresh on merits. Addition u/s 43B - Non-payment of services tax as claimed was paid after the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1), which fell on 30th September 2012 - Held that:- The assessee fairly admitted before us that this disallowance is to be upheld, keeping in view that there is an infringement of Section 43B as admitted by the assessee in paying the service tax late beyond the due date of filing of return of income as prescribed u/s 139(1) , we uphold the aforesaid disallowance. Addition of labour payments - Held that:- AO disbelieved the contentions of the assessee that it physically carried huge cash from Maharashtra to Jharsuguda, Orissa for making payments to labour , but the facts also remains that the assessee has got contract from Vedanta Aluminium Ltd. industrial unit at Jharsuguda (Orissa) for which it is stated by the assessee that it engaged local labour and its turnover increased - AO on its part only disallowed 30% of labour payments while rest stood allowed despite the fact that the AO doubted genuineness of these labour payments. The assessee has also claimed that its turnover had increased but profit ratio fell in this year comparative to preceding year - the assessee deserve one more opportunity as the appellate order of the learned CIT(A) was also an ex-parte order , for whatever reasons the assessee could not avail an opportunity to explain its case before learned CIT(A) - restoring this matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication - Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed
|