TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Hon ble Supreme Court (supra), the issue raised by the assessee are covered. Therefore, ground raised by the assessee i.e. ground no. 1 to 3 are dismissed. Disallowance u/s 37(1) - fees on account of penalty under service tax, interest on account of service tax and late fees under goods and service tax - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) already granted relief to the assessee in respect of interest on account of service tax and late fees under goods and service tax by following the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court. However, the sum of Rs. 40,000/- which is on account of penalty under service tax is not covered by the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court. Therefore, CIT(A) rightly upheld the addition on account of penalty made by the ld. D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... behalf is absolutely arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse. ii. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC was absolutely in error in upholding the disallowance in the sum of Rs. 42,35,172/- made u/s 2(24)(x) read with s. 36(1)(va) of thes Income Tax Act, 1961 by the ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC relying upon the amendment by Finance Act, 2021 misconstruing it to be retrospective in operation and the purported findings on that behalf is altogether unfounded, unjustified and untenable in law. iii. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC acted unlawfully in upholding the impugned disallowance in the sum of Rs. 9,933/- made by the ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC by invokin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied that definition of due date as per section 43B is deemed never to have been applied for the purpose of employee s contribution. As discussed above, the said amendments are clarificatory in nature and are retrospective in operation. Therefore, the payment of employee s contribution made after the due date, by which the appellant is required as an employer to credit an employee s contribution to the employee s account in the relevant fund as per the employee provident fund scheme/ESI Act, is liable to be added to the income of appellant. In view of the above discussion in paras 5 to 5.28, the appeal on ground nos. 1 3 are dismissed. 4. Similarly, in respect of another ground, the assessee challenged the disallowance of Rs. 77,380/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not any objection to such prayer made by the ld. AR. We after careful consideration of the submission made by the parties and following the decision rendered by the Hon ble Supreme Court (supra), the issue raised by the assessee are covered. Therefore, ground raised by the assessee i.e. ground no. 1 to 3 are dismissed. 7. In respect of issue no. 4, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the impugned disallowance to the extent of Rs. 40,000/- made by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC is bad in law by invoking the provisions of section 37(1) of the Act and it is against the law, therefore, it required to be set aside. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the action of the ld. authorities below. He further submitted that the ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
