TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1559X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is reversed and the AO is directed to allow deduction u/s 80IB Violation of provisions of section 40A(3) - Held that:- There is no dispute to the fact that the rent has been paid in cash in violation of provisions of section 40A(3) and the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the action of the AO in disallowing the same. It is also fact that the disallowance of sum claimed enhances the income of the assessee and the income so enhanced is available u/s 80IB of the Act. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in not allowing deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. - I.T.A. No. 331(Asr)/2013 - - - Dated:- 6-12-2013 - H. S. Sidhu (Judicial Member) And B. P. Ja ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cash payment of rent to the Landlord at ₹ 35,000/-. The authorities below did not appreciate that the payment was a genuine payment and was made under the compelling circumstances and as such the same should have been allowed as claimed. Alternatively, it is requested that deduction u/s 80IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 should have been allowed on this disallowance of ₹ 35,000/-. 5. That the authorities below have grossly erred in charging/withdrawing penalty interests under sections 234B 234A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. No Interest under these sections of the Income-tax Act, 1961, may be deleted. Alternatively, the interest charged u/s 234B 244A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is very high and excessive. 6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... identical issue, the ITAT, Amritsar Bench in assessee s own case has decided the issue in assessee s favour. Therefore, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Mr. P.N. Arora, Advocate prayed to allow the ground in favour of the assessee. 3.2. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of both the authorities below. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. On perusal of the decisions in the case of DCIT vs. M/s. TRG Industries Pvt. Ltd. in ITA nos. 483 484(Asr)/2009 (supra) and in assessee s own case in ITA No.139(Asr)/2012 (supra) on identical issue, where EPF was paid before the due date of filing the return was allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) and the Revenue s appeal in both the cases was dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, installation is one of the parts of main sales after manufacturing and liable to deduction u/s 80IB of the Act on these sales. 5.1. The AO after considering the said explanation of the assessee was not satisfied and observed that installation is mainly work of contract nature and cannot be termed to be a part of manufacturing activity and cannot be said to be derived from industrial undertaking in view of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sterling Foods 237 ITR 579 (SC) and accordingly added to the income of the assessee. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 7. The Ld. counsel for the assessee, Mr. P.N.Arora, Advocate, invited our attention to the manufacturing pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of ₹ 30,000/- in cash on 17.02.2009 in violation of provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. The AO added the same to the income of the assessee. The AO further observed that since the assessee has contravened the provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961, accordingly, the assessee is not entitled to deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. 10.1. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 10.2. The Ld. counsel for the assessee, Mr. P.N.Arora, Advocate, argued that though there is contravention of provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act but further argued that disallowance makes enhancement of income and accordingly eligible for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act, in view of the decision in the case of assessee itself in ITA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
