TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present case, but this argument cannot be appreciated as the provision for bonus payable cannot be allowed under section 43B of the Act. Since the assessee has not made payment before the due date of filing of the return, the lower authorities have rightly disallowed the claim of payment of bonus - Decided against assesee. Whether Bonus pertaining to earlier year actually paid during the year under appeal should have been allowed as per provision of section 43B - Held that:- This amount was not disallowed in earlier years, therefore, it cannot be allowed and adjusted in the current year. Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue is confirmed.- Decided against assessee. Disallowance of amount deposited under the Group ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of ₹ 30,00,000/- being the bonus payable to employees, which had been disallowed by the Assessing Officer by invoking provisions of section 43B of the 'Act', on the ground that the same was not paid before the due date of filing of return. 1.2 BECAUSE without prejudice to ground no. 1.1 and in any case, bonus amounting to ₹ 17,62,422/- pertaining to earlier year actually paid during the year under appeal should have been allowed as per provision of section 43B. 2.1 BECAUSE CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of ₹ 36,76,819/- being amount deposited under the Group Gratuity Scheme of LIC of India on the ground that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sum of ₹ 36,16,503/- claimed as employer's contribution to employees provident fund. 4. BECAUSE CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of ₹ 65,249/- being the difference between deposits and deduction of employees' provident fund by presuming that the same represented penal interest on late deposits. 5. BECAUSE the appellant reserves its right to add, delete or alter any other ground or grounds of appeal with the permission of the Chair before hearing or at the time of hearing of appeal. 6. BECAUSE the orders passed by the authorities below are unjust, unreasonable and also bad in law. 2. Apropos grounds No.1.1 and 1.2, it is noticed that the Assessing Officer has disallowed Bonus payable amounti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 17,62,422/-, as it was never disallowed in earlier years. 5. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal with the submission that the Assessing Officer has wrongly disallowed the claim of the assessee. He has also reiterated its contentions as raised before the ld. CIT(A) whereas the ld. D.R. has placed reliance upon the orders of the lower authorities. 6. Having carefully examined the orders of the lower authorities in the light of the rival submissions, we find from the balance sheet as on 31.3.2009 that an amount of ₹ 30 lakhs was appearing under the head Bonus payable (2008-09) and this amount was not paid till 30.9.2009. When this fact was confronted to the assessee, the assessee vide reply dated 26.12.2011 admitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and reiterated its contentions. The ld. CIT(A) re-examined the claim of the assessee in the light of various judicial pronouncements and was of the view that since group gratuity fund is not approved as per requirements of the provisions of section 36(1)(v) of the Act, the addition made by the Assessing Officer deserves to be approved. He accordingly confirmed the addition. 10. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and reiterated its contentions, but the assessee has not filed any evidence with regard to the approval for gratuity fund by the competent authority. Since it is mandatory requirement of provisions of section 36(1)(v) of the Act, the claim of payment under g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... absence of proper recognition by the competent authority, the expenditure of ₹ 36,16,503/- under the head employers contribution towards provident fund, cannot be allowed. We accordingly confirm the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. 15. Apropos ground No.4, it is noticed that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has noticed that total deduction on account of employee s contribution towards EPF from April, 2008 to March, 2009 was ₹ 58,87,417/- whereas the amount deposited was ₹ 59,52,666/-. The difference of ₹ 65,249/- was added as income by the assessee treating the same as penal interest, against which an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), but no submission was advanced an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
