TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 723X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... share issue expenses of ₹ 23,23,312/- u/s35D of the I.T. Act. 2. The ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(A)-XIV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of deferred revenue expenditure of ₹ 31,97,153/- 3. The ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(A)-XIV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to verify the facts and if payments were made within the grace period, if should be allowed. 2. The first and second ground are deletion of ₹ 23,23,312/- u/s. 35D and ₹ 31,97,153/- in deleting the deferred revenue expenditure on account of share issue expenses. 3. The Ld. Representative of the party submitted that first issue is identical to the ground No.7 of ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /-. The Ld. AR relied upon the judgment of the Hon ble apex court in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusims Ltd. 319 ITR 306 (SC). 6. After hearing Ld. Representatives of the parties, we are of the view that if employee s contribution to PF and ESI before due date filing of return, the same is allowable. The AO is directed to verify the payment and allow accordingly. 7. In the result appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Coming to ITA No.1039/Ahd/2007 by assessee. 8. This is an appeal by the assessee. The assessment involved in this appeal is 2000-01. The appeal is instituted against the order of the CIT(A)-XIV, Ahmedabad, dated 05-05-2007. Ground reproduced as under:- 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- ought to have been allowed as revenue expenditure u/s.37 of the Act. 7. Alternatively and without prejudice ₹ 9,94,421/- ought to have been allowed u/s 37 of the Act. 8. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of AO in not granting deduction u/s.80IA of the Act on other income of ₹ 6,86,96,665/-. 9. Alternatively and without prejudice, only net other income and not the gross may kindly be allowed to be taken out from the calculations of the profits of the business. 10. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and o facts in confirming the action of AO in expanding the scope of set aside proceedings in respect of claim of deduction u/s.80HHC of the Act and made a larger disallowance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act without recording mandatory satisfaction as contemplated under the Act. 9. Ground No.1, 2 3 have not been pressed by Ld. AR therefore same are dismissed as not pressed. 10. Ground No.4 is in respect of not allowing set of interest income from share application money of ₹ 1,71,30,212/- against public issue expenses. 11. At the outset, Ld. AR submitted that this issue is covered by the decision of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in TAX Appeal No.315 of 2010, wherein the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court has held:- 11. Coming back to the facts of the case, we ma9y reiterate that the assessee was statutorily required to keep share application money in the separate account till the allotment of shares was comple ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year under consideration. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) followed his order for A.Y 2000-01 and confirmed the condition subject to remark if the assessee s claim is accepted by Assessing Officer in earlier year for which the matter has been remitted back. The assessee shall entitle to approach before Ld. CIT(Appeals) for rectification. At the out set, Ld. AR submitted that this issue is covered by the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) in A.Y 2000-01 in assessee s own case reported in the case of Shri Rama Multi Tech Ltd. v. ACIT (2005) 92 TTJ 568 (Ahd), wherein the ITAT has sent back the issue to the file of Assessing Officer with certain direction. Identical ground has also decided in A.Y. 1998-99 in para No.10 to 10.6 Since the facts are identical we res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. AR has not pressed for dividend income of ₹ 15,726/-, export incentive DEPB of ₹ 74,50,143/- and sundry balance of ₹ 2,09,507/- for want of detailed. Since Ld. AR has not pressed these items, therefore same are dismissed as not pressed. As regards to interest income, the claim of assessee is only in respect of netting. 14. After hearing Ld.DR we sent back this issue regarding of interest income to the file of AO with direction to verify the nexus and decide the issue after considering latest available decision on this issue. As regards to exchange rate fluctuation excess credit Public issue and excess provisions of written back bonus are related to profit and loss account. In other wards, the income is deri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
