9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowing substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.5,24,929/- on account of late payment of PF made by the Assessing Officer u/s 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the payments were made beyond the due date? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. ITAT is right in law in upholding the order of Ld. CIT(A), that the provision of Section 40(a)(i) of Income Tax Act, 1961 are not applicable to payments of Technical know-how, simply because only part of it is written off by the assessee, each year by wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d counsel for the revenue. 4. Regarding question (i), learned counsel for the appellant could not dispute that the issue raised herein finally stands settled by the Apex Court judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC) and this Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 663 of 2005 (The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala v. M/s Rai Agro Industries Ltd. Sangrur), decided on 30.11.2010 wherein it has been held that Second Proviso to Section 43B of the Act omitted by Finance Act, 2003 with effect from 1.4.2004 was clarificatory in nature and was to operate retrospectively. Once that is so, in the present case, the respondent-assessee was entitled to deduction in respect of employer and employee's contribution ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal expenditure incurred by the assessee. In reply, the learned counsel pointed out that the expenditure by way of technical know-how was capitalized and it was not claimed as revenue expenditure. Therefore, there was also no reason to disallow depreciation on such capitalized amount as the aforesaid provision does not deal with deduction of depreciation. Having considered arguments from both the sides, we are of the view that there is no error in the order of the learned CIT(A) which requires correction from us. Thus, this ground is also dismissed." 6. Learned counsel for the revenue was unable to substantiate that in the absence of any requirement of law for making deduction of tax out of the expenditure on technical know-how which was c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
