Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s U.P. Cooperative Processing & Cold Storage Federation Limited Versus ACIT, Range II Lucknow

2015 (8) TMI 133 - ITAT LUCKNOW

Disallowance of bonus payable to employees u/s 43B - the same was not paid before the due date of filing of return - Held that:- As 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 admitted that the bonus payable at ₹ 30 lakhs could not be paid before the due date of filing of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 Gratuity Scheme of LIC of India - the Gratuity Fund of the appellant was not approved by the Competent Authority for recogn .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

roceedings, 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 and the ld. CIT(A) has correctly confirmed the addition. - Decided against as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

en 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to be allowed irrespective of the fact that the approval to the Gratuity Fund sought by the appellant from Commissioner of Income-tax had not yet been received. 2.3 BECAUSE irrespective of the plea taken in ground no. 2.1 & 2.2, the claim of ₹ 36,76,819/- deserved to be allowed in view of the fact that the application filed by the assessee on 17.08.2005 before the Competent Authority (i.e., Commissioner of Income-tax) was still under active consideration and the same had not been rejec .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

till under the active consideration and the same had not been rejected, the CIT(A) should have allowed the 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ate of filing of the return. The Assessing Officer has also disallowed the payment of ₹ 17,62,422/- during the year as it relates to the earlier year period, according to the assessee. 3. Before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer has disallowed the provision for payment of bonus to its employees of ₹ 30 lakhs having invoked the provisions of section 43B of the Act. It was also contended on behalf of the assessee that under the he .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e assessee that ₹ 17,62,422/- which is the liability existing on the first day of the current year but paid during the year and should be allowed as deduction, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that no such claim was disallowed in any of the earlier years as is evident from the audit report. He accordingly confirmed the disallowance of ₹ 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 Offi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s fact was confronted to the assessee, the assessee vide reply dated 26.12.2011 admitted that the bonus payable at ₹ 30 lakhs could not be paid before the due date of filing of the return i.e. 30.9.2011. He, however, claimed that a provision under section 43B of the Act is applicable in 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 fi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

has asked the assessee to furnish the copy of approval granted by the competent authority for recognition of the gratuity fund as provided under the provisions of section 36(1)(v) of the Act. In response thereto, it was stated by the assessee that he has filed a petition for grant of approval and the same is pending before the appropriate authority. Since gratuity fund was not recognized by the appropriate authority, the Assessing Officer has disallowed the payment of ₹ 36,76,819/- paid u .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he 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 group gratuity fund cannot be allowed. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly we confirm the same. 11. Apropos grounds No.3.1 and 3.2, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

etent authority, the Assessing Officer has disallowed the expenditure of ₹ 36,16,503/- under the head employers contribution towards provident fund. 12. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) has also taken note of all these facts that since the provident fund was not recognized by the competent authority, the claim of the assessee is not sustainable. Accordingly the disallowance was confirmed. 13. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version