Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (1) TMI 1444

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the Act - Employees contribution to PF – Held that:- The payments have been made within the grace period of five days, which is permissible under the Provident Fund Act - The counsel drew out attention to the chart, which is part of Form 3CD - the Assessing Officer himself had admitted that the assessee had deposited the employees contribution to provident fund account within the grace period - As the amount has been deposited within the permissible grace period – there was no reason for the disallowance - the Assessing Officer directed to allow the claim of the assessee – Decided in favour of Assessee. - ITA No.3225/Mum/2010 - - - Dated:- 3-7-2013 - Shri H. L. Karwa , President And Shri N. K. Billaiya,JJ. For the Appellant : Shr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d the submissions made by the assessee. The Assessing Officer was of the firm belief that the assessee had paid portion of the sales tax liability in advance and it got benefit of waiver of portion of the amount and only thereafter the balance amount was converted into loan. Therefore, the amount waived by the Sales Tax Department is before it its converted into loan under the scheme of Madhya Pradesh Government. Therefore, it is not the case of waiver of the loan but waiver of sales tax liability and, hence, it is taxable under the head "business income" of the assessee. The assessee carried this matter before the CIT(A) but without any success. The CIT(A) observed that since the assessee had collected sales tax from the parties on behalf .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nment is under consideration. We directed the counsel to submit a comparative chart of both the schemes. A perusal of the comparative chart show that the scheme of Madhya Pradesh Government is in parimateria same with the scheme of Maharashtra Government. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material evidences brought on record. It is not in dispute that the assessee has availed the deferral scheme of the Madhya Pradesh Government, which was introduced in the year 2005. By availing the benefits of the said scheme the loan amount in the first scheme was discharged at its present value and the balance in the loan account was transferred to the capital reserve. Thus, the assessee .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssion in praesenti. It was a simple case of collecting the amount at net present value which was due later on and even the formula for collecting the net present value was also given by the SICOM and the amounts had been paid as per that formula. Therefore, such payment of net present value of a future liability could not be classified as remission or cessation of the liability so as to attract the provisions of section 41(1)(a) [Para 108] " Considering facts in totality, in the light of the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal Special Bench, which has been rightly followed by the CIT(A), we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). For the reasons stated above, it was to be held that the deferred sales tax liabil .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... esaid judgment is misplaced. 6. Ground no.2 relates to the disallowance on account of delay in remittance of employees contribution to provident fund amounting to Rs.1,41,324/-. While scrutinizing the return of income, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has deposited the employees contribution to provident fund beyond the 15th day of next month and thereby violated the provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) and added the amount of Rs.1,41,324/- to the income of the assessee. When the matter was agitated before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) declined to interfere with the findings of the Assessing Officer. 7. Before us the counsel for the assessee strongly submitted that the payments have been made within the grace period o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates