9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeal against orders of CIT (A)-13 Mumbai, application of provisions of Section 14A r.w.rule 8D, computation of disallowance under rule 8D, deduction under section 36(va), disallowance of employees' contribution paid within grace period, disallowance of amount paid to Apparel Export Promotion Council, addition of display charges by Shoppers Stop, levy of interest under section 234B and 234D.
Issue 1 - Application of Section 14A r.w.rule 8D: The appeal involved the application of provisions of Section 14A r.w.rule 8D. The decision was based on the Hon'ble Bombay High Court case of Godrej Boyce Mfg Co. The Assessing Officer invoked rule 8D which was not applicable in the impugned AY. The issue was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination to decide the disallowance under section 14A. The Assessing Officer was directed to examine whether there is any exempt income and determine a reasonable amount for disallowance under section 14A. The ground was considered as allowed. Issue 2 - Computation of disallowance under rule 8D: An alternate ground with reference to computation of disallowance under rule 8D was raised as a precautionary issue by the assessee. Since the first issue was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, this ground became academic in nature and was accordingly dismissed. Issue 3 - Deduction under section 36(va): The issue pertained to allowing deduction under section 36(va) of `46,82,974/-. The Assessing Officer had passed an order under section 154 reducing said amount, which was not considered by CIT (A). As the assessee received relief by way of modification under section 154, there was no need to adjudicate the issue, and the ground was dismissed. Issue 4 - Disallowance of employees' contribution paid within grace period: The ground pertained to disallowance of `4,26,016/- towards employees' contribution paid within the grace period. The Assessing Officer confirmed the disallowance but did not allow the amount paid within the grace period. Following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, the Assessing Officer was directed to allow the amount paid within the grace period, and thus, the ground was considered as allowed. Issue 5 - Disallowance of amount paid to Apparel Export Promotion Council: The issue involved the disallowance of `13,72,623/- being the amount paid to Apparel Export Promotion Council during the previous year. The Assessing Officer disallowed the amount as prior period expenditure, which was confirmed by CIT (A). However, considering the events leading to the forfeiture of the amount by AEPC during the financial year 2004-05, it was held that the amount is allowable in the year of forfeiture. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the amount, and the ground was allowed. Issue 6 - Addition of display charges by Shoppers Stop: The issue concerned the addition of `1,56,664/- being display charges deducted by Shoppers Stop. The Assessing Officer made the addition due to discrepancies noticed and incomplete verification. The CIT (A) directed the Assessing Officer to complete the verification and give the assessee an opportunity. The Assessing Officer was directed to complete the verification expeditiously and delete the addition after giving the necessary opportunity to the assessee. The ground was considered allowed for statistical purposes. Issue 7 - Levy of interest under section 234B and 234D: The final issues pertained to the levy of interest under section 234B and 234D. The Assessing Officer was directed to examine the issue after giving an opportunity to the assessee before levying any interest under the mentioned sections. With these directions, these grounds were considered as allowed. In conclusion, the assessee's appeal was partly allowed by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai.
|
