TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1928X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entitled to deduction of the employees contribution to provident fund ESI which was paid after the due date as specified in Explanation to section 36(1)(va) of the Act, as section 43B cannot be pressed into service because section 43B comes into play only when a deduction is otherwise allowable under the Income-tax Act. Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D - AO applied the provisions of second and third limb of the Rule 8D(2) of the Rules and made the disallowance - CIT(A) deleted the disallowance - HELD THAT:- The issue in dispute is covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the assessee own case, which has been subsequently approved by the Hon ble Calcutta High Court M/S. REI. AGRO LTD. [ 2014 (4) TM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oyees contribution to PF and ESI beyond the due date prescribed in the relevant Act. However, it was pointed out that the same were duly remitted by the assessee before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act and accordingly pleaded for allowability of the same as deduction from the total income. The ld. AO applying the provisions of Section 2(24) (X) r.w. Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, disallowed the same. The Ld. CIT(A) by following the decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Vijay Shree Ltd. in ITA No. 245 of 2011 in GA No. 2607 of 2011, dt. 6th September, 2011. Aggrieved the Revenue is in appeal before us on the following grounds: For Assessment Year 2010-11 Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ) in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5.1. The facts of assessment year 2010-11 are considered herein and the decision rendered for assessment year 2010-11 would apply with equal force for assessment year 2011-12 and also as the facts are identical except for the variance in figures. 6. The Ld. AO observed that the assessee had shown exempt dividend income of Rs.71,44,190/-, in its PLA on account of payment of interest. He also observed that the assessee had investments to the tune of Rs.11,07,27,282/- as on 31.03. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7,282/-. Thus, at the most the AO would have made disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) by adopting the average value of the investment form which dividend income was earned. Such disallowance comes to Rs.3,79,136/-. The appellant place reliance on the decision of the ITAT, Kolkata in its own case for the A.Y. 2008-09 i.e. REI Agro Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA No. 1331/Kol/2011 and DCIT vs. REI Agro Ltd., ITA No. 1423/Kol/2011 dated 19.06.2013. Further, it is submitted by the appellant that the Revenue s appeal u/s 260A has been dismissed by the Hon ble Calcutta High Court vide order date 09.04.2014 6.2. The ld CIT(A) by placing reliance on the co-ordinate bench decision of this Tribunal in assessee own case directed the Ld. AO to recalculate the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowance u/s 14A by considering the value of exempted income yielding investments only and further directed that the exemption amount should not be less than the amount of exemption calculated by the assessee itself. Since the calculation of the assessee is vitiated with some mistake which is rectified in AO s calculation the disallowance should be taken as per AO s calculation. In view of above as the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the further disallowances u/s 14A of the Act amounting to Rs.30,26,654/-. That the Department craves leave to add, modify or alter any of the ground(s) of appeal and/ or adduce additional evidence at the time of hearing of the case. 6.3 The Ld. DR fairly conceded that the issue under dispute is cover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
