TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 640X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. [ 2014 (1) TMI 502 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ] and M/s.Checkmate Facility Electronics Solutions P.Ltd. Vs. DCIT [ 2018 (10) TMI 994 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ] wherein it is held that the employees contribution to the Employees Provident Fund (EPF)/ Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) deposited beyond the due date prescribed under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 would not be eligible for deduction under section 43B of the Act, even if deposited before the due date of filing the tax return - Decided against assessee. Disallowance on account of expenditure on consultancy and legal fees - As per AO since the transaction entered under Preparation of Amalgamation of MRPL with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntant Member For the Assessee : Written submissions For the Revenue : Shri Shaurya S. Shukla, Sr.DR ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against order of the ld.CIT(A)-1, Ahmedabad dated 17.10.20128 passed for the Asstt.Year 2015-16. 2. The grounds of appeal are not in consonance with the Rule 8 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 - they are descriptive and argumentative in nature. In brief, the assessee raises two issues viz. (i) the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance of ₹ 11,14,726/- by holding that the same was not deposited in the relevant fund on or before the due date, and (ii) the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, held that deduction would be allowable only if the sum of contribution is credited to the assessee s account in the relevant funds on or before the due date as prescribed under the provision section 36(1)(va) of the Act. He accordingly disallowed the claim of the assessee and added the same to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred first appeal. The action of the AO was confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). Assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 4. After hearing both the sides on the issue, and going through the written submissions filed by the assessee, we find that this issue has been settled by the H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with MIP and Layer fees for Merger respectively as revenue expenses. The ld.AO sought details of such expenses and explanation as to why the same should not be considered under section 35D of the Act and 4/5th of the such expenditure be not disallowed. It was explained by the assessee that the said expenditure was incurred during the routine course of business and should not be treated as capital expenditure. However, the ld.AO did not accept this explanation of the assessee, and noted that since the transaction entered under Preparation of Amalgamation of MRPL with MIP and Lawyers fees for Merger which itself explains that the said expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of amalgamation or demerger of an under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the assessee. The AO in the order has observed that the assessee has failed to furnish details and it did not state anything nor produced any corroborating evidence in support of its claim of expenses. The concurrent findings of Revenue authorities that purpose for which the expenditure was incurred is specific and the claim of expenditure against Tax Consultancy under the column Transaction Text of ledger of Transactions, the term Preparation of Amalgamation of MRPL with MIP and Lawyer fees for Merger respectively mentioned, were not successfully rebutted by the assessee before us also. This treatment and classification of the said expenditure in the accounting transaction by the assessee clearly shows that the expenditure was incu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
