TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 1099X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has erred in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 14,06,233/- on account of guest house expenses. 2.2 The AO disallowed the guest house expenses after holding that the expenses have not been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The AO has also mentioned that such expenses were disallowed in preceding years and the issue is pending for adjudication before Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. 2.3 The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition as according to him Section 37(4) of the Act has been removed w.e.f. assessment year 1998-99 by Finance Act 1997. 2.4 We have heard both the parties. The AO has disallowed guest house expenses on the ground that such disallowance has been made in earlier years and the issue is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the para 5.2 from the above decision. 5.2 This issue has been decided against the Revenue by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Swastik Metal Casting Vs. ACIT (ITA No.964/JP/2010) vide order dated 20-04-2011. It will be useful to reproduce para 3.2 and 3.3 of the above referred order 3.2 The ld. CIT(A) held that the employees contribution to PF and ESI is not to be allowed as the same has not been paid within the stipulated time as provided in respective Act of PF and ESI. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO. 3.3 We have heard both the parties. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Alom Extrusions Ltd., 319 ITR 306 has held that the proviso introduced by the Finance Act, 2003 is curative in nature and is ret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontributions are paid before due date of filing. It is not in dispute before us that the contributions have not been paid before due date of filing of the return. We therefore, hold that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the Employers P.F. Contribution and Employees P.F. Contribution. 5.0 Now we take up the C.O. filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2003-04. 5.1 The first ground of C.O. of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of expenses of ₹ 12,74,949/- incurred for issue of Bonds by treating the same as capital expenditure. 5.2 The AO treated the expenditure incurred on raising the funds through Bonds as capital and the therefore, the same was disallowed. 5.3 The ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n confirming the disallowance of ₹ 1,05,87,365/-. 7.0 Now we take up the appeal of the revenue for the assessment year 2004-05. 7.1 The first ground of appeal of the revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 15,64,645/- on account of guest house expenses. 7.2 Following our order for the assessment year 2003-04, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance. 8.1 The second ground of appeal of the revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 12,72,189/- on account of gifts presents in business promotion expenses. 8.2 Following our order for the assessment year 2003-04, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
