Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (10) TMI 1601 - ITAT HYDERABAD

2015 (10) TMI 1601 - ITAT HYDERABAD - [2015] 40 ITR (Trib) 470 (ITAT [Hyd]) - Disallowance of employees' contribution of provident fund under section 36(1)(va) - Held that:- Though it is a fact that the assessee has remitted the employees' contribution to provident fund not within the due date as prescribed under the Explanation to section 36(1)(va), however, the assessee has remitted the amount within the due date of filing of return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, in view .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

essing similar view. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we allow the assessee's claim of depreciation at 60 per cent.- Decided in favour of assessee.

Computation of deduction under section 10A - Held that:- We direct the Assessing Officer to compute deduction under section 10A of the Act by reducing internet charges and onsite expenses both from export turnover and total turnover. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos. 218 & 219/Hyd/2015 - Dated:- 3-6-2015 - SHRI P.M. JAGTAP AN .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hey are dismissed. Ground No. 7 has been raised by the assessee challenging the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This ground being premature at this stage of proceeding, do not require adjudication, hence, the same is dismissed. 3. In ground No. 3, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of an amount of ₹ 2,16,412, being employees' contribution of provident fund, under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4. Briefly the facts are, the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

h section 2(24)(x) of the Act, the Assessing Officer disallowed the amount of ₹ 2,16,412. Being aggrieved of such disallowance, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) also confirmed the disallowance. 5. The learned authorised representative submitted before us, if the employees' contribution to provident fund is remitted within the due date of filing of return of income as provided under .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

esentative, on the other hand, relied upon the reasoning of the Assessing Officer. 7. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue authorities as well as other materials on record. Though it is a fact that the assessee has remitted the employees' contribution to provident fund not within the due date as prescribed under the Explanation to section 36(1)(va), however, the assessee has remitted the amount within the due date of filing of return of inco .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

at 60 per cent., restricted the same to 15 per cent. on reasoning that it is not part of the computer system. Though, the assessee challenged the decision of the Assessing Officer before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), but, he also confirmed the view expressed by the Assessing Officer. 10. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the materials on record. We hold that UPS being part and parcel of computer system, depreciation allowable on UPS is at 60 per c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

omputing deduction under section 10A of the Act. 12. Having heard the parties and perused the materials on record, we are of the view that in view of the decisions of the hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 175 (Bom) and the Special Bench decision of the Chennai Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Sak Soft Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR (AT) 353 (Chennai) [SB] and a number of decisions of various Benches of this Tribunal, internet charges and onsite e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version