TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 2100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receipt and not a revenue receipt - Accordingly, respectfully following the precedent, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Accordingly, we uphold the same. Addition u/s 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(l)(va ) - assessee has not paid the employees' contribution to the Provident Fund within the time allowed under the P.F. Act. - HELD THAT:- Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) noted that the employees contribution to the provident fund though paid after the due date as specified in P.F. Act but was paid before the due date, i.e., the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this regard, he referred to the decision of Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [ 2014 (3) T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntative and perusing the records. Apropos ground no.1: 4. In this issue, the Assessing Officer has held that the interest subsidy of ₹ 1,19,11,327/- received by the assessee under Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme (TUF Scheme) of the Government of India was revenue receipt and not capital receipt as canvassed by the assessee. 5. Upon the assessee s appeal, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) elaborately dealt with the issue. He also referred to the objectives mentioned in the said TUF scheme. He also referred to several decisions on the same subject and thereafter deleted the addition. The order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) reads as under: I have considered the stand of the AO as well as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal (Kolkata Bench) in DCIT vs. Gloster Jute Mills Ltd. 40 CCH 433 (2014) wherein identical questions of facts and law arose. The appellant has also filed a copy of appellate orders of my coordinated CIT(A)-16, Mumbai in the case of M/s Dicitex Furnishing Ltd. for A.Y. 2012-13 in appeal No. CIT(A)-:S/ ACIT(OSD)-8(1)/IT-220/2014-15 dated 23.4.2015 and appeal No.CIT(A)-16/ACIT(OSD)-$(1)/IT-221/2014-15 dated 23.4.2015 wherein similar facts arose and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee. Respectfully following the ruling of the Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Sham Lal Bansal (supra) and other judicial pronouncements referred above, it is held that the TUFS subsidy received by the appellant is capital in nature. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
