9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1878X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowance of commission of Rs. 65,65,621/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961 made by AO. (2)(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,28,599/- made for depositing the employee's contribution to PF &ESI beyond the prescribed time limit provided in the respective Acts. (2)(b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that employee's contribution to PF & ESI are governed by the provision of section 43B and not by section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of IT Act. 2. In respect of assessee's cross objection, the ld AR submitted that the assessee in his cross objection, has supported the order of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Arjoo J Ltd. and the facts and issues are similar with the all four above mentioned parties, the AO is therefore directed the delete the disallowance of commission of total Rs. 65,65,621/- to the above four parties (M/s Arjoo J. ltd ,M. Ishikawa, Kizahashi Co. Ltd. and V.H. Toorabally & Co. Ltd. 3.2 During the course of hearing, the ld AR reiterated his submissions made before the ld CIT(A) and further submitted that the matter is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case for A.Y.2011-12 in appeal No. ITA No. 56/JP/15 and CO No. 11/JP/15 dated 12.02.2016. The relevant findings are as under: "We have heard the rival contention and perused the material available on record. It is not i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee's cross-objection, the ld. CIT(A) has given his findings as under: "I have perused the facts of the case, the assessment order and the submissions of the appellant. Admittedly, employee's contribution to ESI and PF has been paid by the appellant, in all instances, before the due date of filing the return of income u/s 139(1). This fact is therefore, not in dispute. In view of the judgements of the Rajasthan High court in the case of Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. 265 CTR 62 (Raj.), CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (2014)99 DTR 131 (Raj) and ITAT, Jaipur, in the case of the assessee, the claim of the appellant is allowable. Accordingly, the disallowance made by the AO is directed to be deleted. This ground is allowed. 4.1 Simi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
