Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (2) TMI 1636

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... und and Employees State Insurance Contribution were paid by the assessee before filing of the return and proof of payment was submitted before the AO, the amounts were deductible as deduction. CIT(A) relied on the decision in the case of CIT Vs Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009 (11) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT] and CIT Vs Aimil Ltd. & ors. (2009 (12) TMI 38 - DELHI HIGH COURT) deleted the addition. - Decided against revenue. Disallowance of consultancy charges - CIT-A deleted the addition by considering the additional evidence without providing opportunity to the Assessing Officer - Held that:- Since the additional evidence has been entertained by the ld. CIT(A) without providing adequate and effective opportunity of being heard to AO, therefore, in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... leting the addition of ₹ 13,62,84,653/- on account of depositing the PF ESI beyond the prescribed time limit. The ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue as under: 6.2. I have considered the facts of the case, gone through the assessment order and submission of the appellant. It is seen that the assessee has deposited the contribution towards CPF, GPF and ESI before the due date of filing of the income tax return. The decision of Rajasthan High Court relied by the Ld. AR supports the case of the assessee wherein it is held that if Employee s contribution towards PF, if paid after the due date under the respective Acts but before filing of return of income u/s 139(1), cannot be disallowed u/s 43B or u/s 36(l)(va) of the Act. During t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... does not deposit this contribution with PF/ESI authorities, it will be tax as income at the hands of the assessee. However, on making deposit with the concerned authorities, the assessee becomes entitled to deduction under the provisions of s. 36(I)(va). Sec. 43B(b), however, stipulates that such deduction would be permissible only on actual payments. This is the scheme of the Act for making an assessee entitled to get deduction from income insofar as employees contribution is concerned. Deletion of the second proviso has been treated as retrospective in nature and would not apply at all. The case is to be governed with the application of the first proviso. If the employees contribution is not deposited by the due date prescribed under t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rusions Ltd (supra) and decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Aimil Ltd. Ors (supra), the payments made before due date for filing of return of income are allowable. The AO is directed to verify the dates of payment of employee s contribution towards PF and ESI and delete the addition made on this account if the payments have been made before the due date of filing of return of income by the appellant. Considering the factual and legal position as discussed above, the AO is directed to verify and allow as per law. This ground of appeal is allowed. 3. The ld. CIT DR has vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer. On the contrary, the ld AR of the assessee has reiterated the arguments as made bef .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iding opportunity to the Assessing Officer as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The ld. CIT(A) allowed this ground by holding that the expenditure are related to the business of the assessee and also are not in the nature of the capital expenditure, therefore, he deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 6. The ld. CIT DR has supported the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has entertained the additional evidence filed by the assessee without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Assessing Officer, therefore, he prayed to restore the issue back to the Assessing Officer. On the contrary, the ld AR of the assessee has vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 7. The Ben .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates