9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1928X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2010-2011 & 2011-12. 2. Identical grounds are raised for both the assessment years by the Revenue and hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of brevity and convenience. 3. The first issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding the disallowance u/s 2(24)(X) r.w. Section 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of employees' contribution to PF and ESI. 3.1. Brief facts of this issue is that the Ld. AO found from the Tax Audit Report that the assessee had deposited the employees' 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 fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen a deduction is otherwise allowable under the Income-tax Act. 3.2. The Ld. DR conceded that that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. 4. We have heard the Ld. DR, and we find that the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court (Supra) and respectfully following the same, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard. Accordingly, ground no. 1 raised by the Revenue for both the assessment years is dismissed. 5. The next 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" ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for making investment in shares. That, the appellant was having its own funds more than the investment in shares and moreover in the year under consideration no new investment in shares was made as apparent from the balance sheet. It is also argued by the appellant that the AO has made disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) being 0.5% of average value of the investment by considering the entire value of the investment whereas the value of investments from which exempt income in the form of dividend was received was Rs.7,58,27,282/-. 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 appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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.8,21,84,050/- * 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. For Assessment Year 2011-12 * "The Ld. CIT(A) directed to calculate the disallowance 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
