TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction has been reflected in Form 26AS, the onus is on the assessee to demonstrate that such transaction doesn t represent real income in its hands. In the instant case, we find that the assessee has failed to adduce any evidence in support of its contention that it has received lower interest income than what has been reflected in Form 26AS. Further, nothing has been brought on record to suggest that the Form 26AS has been subsequently modified/amended to reflect the actual interest payment to the assessee. In the result, the ground so taken is dismissed. Disallowance of ESI/EPF contributions u/s 36(1)(va) - HELD THAT:- As contributions were deposited before the due date of filing of the return of income u/s 139(1), in view of a series ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deduction of premature charges and therefore, it is not the case that assessee has earned higher income and has not offered the entire amount whereas claimed TDS on the same. It was submitted that whatever interest has been received by the assessee, the same has been offered to tax. It was further submitted that since TDS has already happened at the time of accrual by the bank, the assessee had no option but to claim the whole of the TDS. 3. Per contra, the ld. DR submitted that during the course of assessment as well as appellate proceedings, the assessee has failed to produce any evidence to prove that the FDRs were encashed prematurely, therefore, in absence of any evidence on record or confirmation from the bank, the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on record to suggest that the Form 26AS has been subsequently modified/amended to reflect the actual interest payment to the assessee. In the result, the ground so taken is dismissed. 5. In Ground No. 2, assessee has challenged the confirmation of disallowance of ESI/EPF contributions of ₹ 115,849/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. In this regard, undisputed facts are that these contributions were deposited before the due date of filing of the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. Recently, we have dealt with the issue in case of M/s K.S.Automobiles Ltd. Vs. DCIT ( ITA No. 1184/JP/18 and 1185/JP/18 dated 08.03.2019 ) and the relevant finding is as under:- 3. We have heard the ld. AR as well as ld. DR and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... State Public Enterprise and that a finding of fact has been recorded that the contribution made to the State Renewal fund is solely for the purposes of the welfare and benefit of the employees. In our view, it is for the assessee to decide whether any expenditure should be incurred in the course of business and expenditure of this nature being for business expediency is certainly allowable deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. In our view any normal expenditure for the welfare and benefit of the employees is allowable expenditure under section 37(1), the Tribunal has come to a finding of fact that it was a legal obligation of the respondent-assessee towards contribution of the said amount to the State Renewal Fund and there being a lega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... favour of the department it can recover the amount. Therefore, even the decision which is relied upon the ld. CIT(A) the same is in favour of the assessee though due to typographical mistake it was misunderstood by the ld. CIT(A) as in favour of the Revenue. Accordingly, in view of a series of decisions of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in favour of the assessee and further Hon ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. 250 taxmann 16 has dismissed the SLP filed by the Department this issue is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Hence, disallowances/additions made by the AO on account of employees contribution to PF ESI are deleted. 6. Therefore, respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
