TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 851X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Mark Auto Industries Ltd. [ 2013 (1) TMI 448 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] . Since in the present case the assessee has deposited the ESI/PF before the due date of filing of the return, respectfully following the decision of Mark Auto Industries (supra) the addition made by the AO is deleted. Ground of appeal no. 2 is allowed. Addition u/s.14A r.w.r. 8D - HELD THAT:- As during the course of appellate proceedings specifically pleaded that it had made investment in the shares, which was made out of the internal accruals and not out of borrowed funds, however, no dividend was received on the said investment - findings of the ld. CIT(A) are based on the judgement in the case of CIT Vs M/s. Lakhani Marketing [ 2014 (7) TMI 44 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] wherein it has been held that unless and until there is receipt of exempt income during the year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, section 14A cannot be invoked. No merit in the contention of the Revenue that the ld. CIT(A) has wrongly deleted the addition - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 373/CHD/2018 - - - Dated:- 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der statutory obligation to deduct tax at source. (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the additions made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the IT Act, 1961, on account of employee share paid after due date wherein the CBDT has given clarification regarding applicability of Section 43-B that this circular does not apply to claim of deduction relating to employee's contribution to welfare funds which are governed by Section 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act. (iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has not erred in law and fact in ignoring the legislative intent expressed in CBDT's Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11.02.2014 which explicitly states that expenses relatable to earning of exempt income have to be considered for disallowance irrespective of the fact whether any such income has been earned during the F.Y. or not? v) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has not erred in law in following the decision of Hon'ble High Court in Lakhani Marketing decided following decisions in the case of Hero Cycles Ltd., 323 ITR 204 and CIT vs. Winsome Textile ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terial on record including the cases relied upon by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition made by the AO holding as under:- 5.3 The taxability in India of payment of commission and legal and professional charges made to non-resident entities by an Indian company were considered and decided in favour of the assessee by Hon'ble ITAT in the similar facts and circumstances in the case of IDS Infotech Ltd. (2016) 69 taxman.com 393. The CIT (Appeals)-2, Gurgaon vide his order for assessment year 2012-13 in the case of the appellant in appeal No. 99/11/2014-15 and CIT(A)-2 Chandigarh vide his order dated 01.09.2017 in appeal no 276/2/15-16 for assessment year 2013-14 decided the issue after considering the aforesaid decision of the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench and also considered the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. vs CIT (2010) 327 ITR 456/193 Taxman 234 17. The issue was decided as under: The aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed of case law of Transmission Corporation which has been distinguished on the facts that in that case there was a composite contract have bearings in India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of CIT Vs Mark Auto Industries Ltd. 358 ITR 43 and the decision of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hotel Surya vs DCIT, ITA Nos. 133 134/Chd/2021 and the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue by following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid case, there is no merit in this ground of appeal of the Revenue. 11. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties. The grievance of the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has wrongly deleted the addition of ₹ 38,307/- made by the AO u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of non-payment of employees contribution to welfare funds on or before the due date as per the relevant Act. The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition holding as under:- 6.1 During the assessment proceedings assessing officer observed that the assessee has not deposited employee's contribution to welfare funds aggregating to ₹ 38,307/-. The assessee was confronted as to why disallowance of late payments made on account of employee's contribution to welfare funds not be made. The assessee filed his reply. As pointed out by the Ld. counsel the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue in favour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le 8D of the Income Tax Rules. The ld. DR accordingly submitted that since the ld. CIT(A) has wrongly deleted the addition the impugned order may be set aside. 14. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that since the assessee had not received any dividend on investment in shares during the year relevant assessment year, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made by the AO. The ld. counsel further submitted that the findings of the ld. CIT(A) are based on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs M/s. Lakhani Marketing [2014] 49 taxman.com 257 (P H). Hence, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 15. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record including the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court relied upon by the ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has decided this issue in favour of the assessee holding as under:- 7.3 I have considered the submission of the Ld. Counsel along with the case laws relied upon by the assessee and pursued the order of the Assessing Officer. Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Lakhani ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
