TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been allocated unit-wise and head-wise. The assessee also stated that separate books of accounts are maintained for each unit and if separate books are maintained, there is no case for disallowance of expenditure on estimation basis. AR also submitted that all the expenditure was distributed among all the units proportionately and there is no case of making estimated disallowance relating to non-taxable unit. AO neither rejected the books of accounts nor made out case of suppression of taxable income, or inflation of expenditure in taxable units. We hold that there is no case for making the addition on estimation basis, hence, we set aside the orders of lower authorities and delete the additions made by the AO. The appeal of assessee on this ground is allowed. Set-off of loss before allowing the deduction u/s 10A - HELD THAT:- In the case of CIT Vs. Yokogawa India Ltd [2016 (12) TMI 881 - SUPREME COURT] it was held that the profits and gains of business of eligible undertaking has to be made independently and immediately after the stage of determination of its profits and gains and it is premature to apply the provisions of Section 70, 71 and 72 of the Act at the stag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirmed the addition made by the AO, holding that the assessee having not remitted the contribution to the respective accounts before the due dates specified under the Act, the same are not allowable deductions u/s.43B of the Act. Hene, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal, against the order of Ld.CIT(A). 3.3. During the appeal hearing, Ld.AR argued that the assessee has remitted the contributions to the respective accounts before the due date of filing the return, therefore requested to set aside the order of the lower authorities and delete the addition made by the AO. 3.4. On the other hand, the Ld.DR submitted that the EPF is in respect of employees contribution, both the PF and ESI are required to be allowed as deductions, if the same are remitted to the respective accounts before the due dates, specified in the respective act. Since the assessee failed to remit the same before the due date of the respective accounts, as per the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, the AO made the addition and the Ld.CIT(A) rightly sustained, hence, no interference is called-for in the order of Ld.CIT(A), hence argued that the appeal of the assessee deserved to be d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cerned, this Court has extensively considered the aforesaid two questions in assessee's own case vide judgment and order dt.26.05.2016 referred to (supra) and has held that the privilege fees being a revenue expenditure, is required to be allowed as a revenue expenditure. This court in the aforesaid case has also allowed the claim of the assessee, in so far as payment of PF ESI etc. is concerned, on the finding of fact that the amounts in question were deposited on or before the due date of furnishing of the return of income and taking in consideration judgment of this Court in CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner Jaipur [2014] 363 ITR 70/43 taxmann.com 411/225 Taxman 6 (Mag.) (Raj.) and CIT v. Jaipur Vidhut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. [2014] 363 ITR 307/49 taxmann.com 540/[2015] 228 Taxman 214 (Mag.) (Raj.) and accordingly both the questions are covered by the aforesaid judgment and against the revenue . Against which the revenue has filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2017) [85 taxmann.com 185]. Therefore, taking the consistent view and respectfully following the view taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition. Hence, requested to set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and allow the appeal of assessee. 5.4. On the other hand, the Ld.DR supporting the orders of lower authorities vehemently argued that the CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition made by the AO, hence, requested to uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 5.5. We have heard both the parties and gone through the material placed on record. As seen from Pgs.16 17 of the Paper Book, the assessee is having four units, for which the income and expenditure has been allocated unit-wise and head-wise. The assessee also stated that separate books of accounts are maintained for each unit and if separate books are maintained, there is no case for disallowance of expenditure on estimation basis. Further, Ld.AR also submitted that all the expenditure was distributed among all the units proportionately and there is no case of making estimated disallowance relating to non-taxable unit. The AO neither rejected the books of accounts nor made out case of suppression of taxable income, or inflation of expenditure in taxable units. Therefore, we hold that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act. Since in this case, after giving effect to the provisions of Section 70 and 71 of the Act, it resulted in loss, the Ld.CIT(A) held that no deduction is allowable u/s.10A of the Act. 6.3. Against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal and argued that in the instance case, there was profit in the eligible unit and by following the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Yokogawa India Ltd., [77 taxmann.com 41], argued that assessee is eligible for deduction u/s.10A of the Act on the gross total income of eligible undertaking under Chapter-VI of the Act and no addition to be made at the stage of computation of income under Chapter-VI of the Act, therefore argued that the assessee is entitled for deduction and hence requested to set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) and allow the appeal of assessee. 6.4. On the other hand, the Ld.DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 6.5. We have heard both the parties and gone through the material placed on record. In the case of CIT Vs. Yokogawa India Ltd., (supra), it was held that the profits and gains of business of eligible undertaking has to be made independently and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
