TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Associate Enterprise. The loan given to subsidiary company has a lower risk as the assessee has indirect control on it. Further LIBOR + nominal adjustment has been upheld by various ITAT Benches as reasonable. Therefore, we find that interest rate proposed by the assessee @ 8.90% is reasonable as against 11.40% decided by DRP. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. Disallowance of belated payment of PF and ESI - Held that:- Where the payments on account of contribution to the provident fund, employees' State insurance, etc., are made within the due date of filing the return, such deductions are allowable - See CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. [2014 (8) TMI 677 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceived leaving the cash balance of USD 175000 at the end of the year. The auditors report in Form No. 3CEB as required u/s 92E of the I.T. Act was enclosed alongwith return of income. These International Transactions with the Associate Enterprise were referred to Transfer Pricing Officer u/s 92CA of the Act. The TPO s order was also confronted with the assessee which has been enclosed as per Annexure A of the order of AO. The AO has reproduced the finding given by the TPO in his assessment order. The assessee had not charged any interest from its AE. In independent unrelated transaction, the assessee had to charge interest from the party. The AO gave reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was submitted before him that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest @ 11.40% as against 14% charged by her on the BBB Bonds. In pursuance to the said directions of the DRP, the TPO vide order u/s 144C(5) dated 13-10-2011 worked out the interest which amounted to ₹ 35,88,640/- as against ₹ 44,07,095/- worked out by her vide order u/s 92CA(3) dated 29-10-2010. Accordingly, the addition of ₹ 35,88,640/- was made to the total income of the assessee. 2.3 Being aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee is in appeal before us. 2.4 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR argued that the assessee had advanced interest free loan to its subsidiary company. It was a running account and there was a balance as on closing date of the financial year. The assessee has not proposed any inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 The ground no. 2 of the assessee is that the AO is not justified in disallowing the belated payment of PF and ESI of ₹ 5,00,941/- and in making addition of the same to returned income. 3.2 The facts of the case in brief are that the AO has made an addition of ₹ 5,00,941/- by disallowing the employees contribution towards PF of ₹ 4,17,348/- and ESI contribution of ₹ 83,593/- which had been deposited in Govt. account after expiry of the due dates as prescribed under the relevant statutes which has been upheld by the DRP. However, the assessee submitted that it has deposited both the contributions before due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act i.e. 30-09-2007 3.3 We have heard both the parties and per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vs George Williamson (Assam) Ltd., 284 ITR 619. In the case before Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, the issue was in respect of contribution of PF and ESI relating to employees shares. It is noticed from the audit report that all the payments have been paid before the due date of filing of return and therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in not deleting the sum of ₹ 150,294/-. The same is deleted. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the recent judgement dated 13th May,2013 of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (2013) 35 Taxmann.com 616, we allow ground no. 2 of the assessee. 4.1 The ground no. 3 of the assessee is th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able with the AO but he has not allowed unabsorbed depreciation of ₹ 1,92,95,972/- as claimed by the assessee. He further argued that the matter may be sent back to the AO for reexamination. 5.5 At the outset, the ld. DR fairly accepted the assessee's proposal. 5.6 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. The DRP already directed the AO to verify the assessee's claim for brought forward unabsorbed depreciation on the basis of I.T. records or assessee's records and allow the same as per law. We are also of the considered view that this issue requires reconsideration by the AO and the AO is directed to very the assessment records of the assessee and allow unabsorbed depreciatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
