TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 361X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his issue denovo and pass a reasoned and speaking order - Decided in favour of assesse for statistical purposes. Addition on account of employees contribution to PF and ESIC - Held that:- After hearing both the parties, respectfully following the aforementioned decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd., (2014 (10) TMI 402 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT)in which it has been held that the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition with regard to payment of employees contribution when the payment has been made before due date of filing the return, we delete the disallowance as all the payments are made before due date of filing of the return. - Decided in favour of assesse. Addition of interest under section 41(1) - Held that: This issue is restored back to the file of AO with a direction to verify the contention of the assessee and, if after verification, it is found that the impugned amount is already offered to tax in assessment year 2004-05 and 2005-06, then no addition should be made in the present year and, if the contention of the assessee is not found to be correct, then the same may be added to the income of the assessee after givin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd., (2014) 368 ITR 749 (Bom), in which it has been held that the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition with regard to payment of employees contribution when the payment has been made before due date of filing the return. 3.1 However, on this issue Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by Ld. DRP. 3.2 On this issue, after hearing both the parties, respectfully following the aforementioned decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd., (supra), we delete the disallowance as all the payments are made before due date of filing of the return. 4. With regard to addition made under section 41(1) of the Act it was submitted by Ld. AR that the assessee has already offered this income in earlier assessment years and reference in this regard was made to the submissions made before DRP, copy of which is filed at page 120 to 122 of the paper book, wherein with regard to addition of ₹ 48,72,000/- the submissions of the assessee are as under: Item No 4 Addition of Interest u/s 41(1) of ₹ 48,72,000/- The Company is in the business of exports. Once goods are shipped the bills ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required to be made. Hence appellant prays that this addition should be deleted. 4.1 It was submitted that Ld. DRP did not consider this issue in proper perspective and the matter may be restored back to the file of AO to verify the contention of the assessee and, if after verification, it is found that amount of ₹ 48,72,000/- is already offered to tax in earlier years, then it may be directed that no addition should be made and in case the contention of the assessee is not found to be correct then the same may be upheld. 5. Ld. DR did not raise any objection to such contention of Ld. AR. 6. In this view of the situation, the issue regarding addition of ₹ 48,72,000/- is restored back to the file of AO with a direction to verify the aforementioned contention of the assessee and, if after verification, it is found that the impugned amount is already offered to tax in assessment year 2004-05 and 2005-06, then no addition should be made in the present year and, if the contention of the assessee is not found to be correct, then the same may be added to the income of the assessee after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. This issue is allowed f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in accordance with sale ratio and similarly there is difference in increased and decreased stock and also with regard to adjustment on account of foreign exchange. Therefore, TPO adopted the ALP margin at 35.18% in place of 22.17% and thus, arriving at an adjustment of ₹ 1,45,10,908/-. 7.2 The assessee raised objections before Ld. DRP, according to which the difference in the profits earned by the assessee from AE and non-AE was on account of geographical difference as sales to AEs were in USA and sales to non-AEs were in European countries. It was further submitted that AEs were having substantial risk of recovery and has given bulk orders, wherein the assessee had to incur lesser expenses for producing jewellery goods. Ld. DRP found merit in the submissions of the assessee with regard to geographical difference and bulk sales and considering this aspect Ld. DRP has restricted the margin to 30% in place of 35.18% adopted by the TPO. 7.3 After narrating the facts, it was submitted by Ld. AR that due to non-availability of proper employees in the company, the matter could not be effectively represented either before TPO or before Ld. DRP. It was submitted that the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
