9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of employees' contribution to the Provident Fund. 2. Addition of provision made for liability towards unidentified Motor Third Party Claim for computing Book Profit u/s 115JB. Summary: Issue 1: Disallowance of Employees' Contribution to the Provident Fund The assessee contested the disallowance of Rs. 8,67,57,956/- related to employees' contributions to the Provident Fund. The Assessing Officer (AO) initially disallowed Rs. 12,47,14,601/- citing delays in payment. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 8,67,57,956/- under section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va), stating that actual payment to the Provident Fund is required for deduction, not just crediting the employees' accounts. The assessee argued that the business of insurance other than life insurance should be computed as per section 44 read with Rule 5 of the First Schedule of the Income-tax Act, 1961. They contended that crediting employees' contributions to their accounts within the due date should suffice for deduction under section 36(1)(va), without the need for actual payment. The Tribunal, after reviewing the evidence, including individual employee accounts and Provident Fund rules, concluded that the assessee had credited both employees' and employer's contributions on the date of recovery. Thus, the requirements u/s 36(1)(va) were fulfilled. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the revenue authorities and directed the AO to give relief of Rs. 8,67,57,956/-. Issue 2: Addition of Provision for Unidentified Motor Third Party Claim u/s 115JB The AO disallowed Rs. 3,17,07,848/- for unidentified Motor Third Party Claims while computing taxable income and under MAT u/s 115JB, considering it an ad-hoc provision for an undetermined liability. The CIT(A) deleted the addition for regular taxable income but confirmed it under section 115JB, treating it as an unascertained liability. The assessee argued that the provision was based on actual claims received through Court summons and was made following discussions with the General Insurance Corporation of India and its subsidiaries. They contended that the provision should be considered an ascertained liability, at least to the extent of one-third of the claims received. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had deleted the addition for regular taxable income based on specific provisions of the Income-tax Act and Supreme Court decisions. It was inconsistent for the CIT(A) to take a contrary view for MAT computation. The Tribunal concluded that the provision for unidentified Motor Third Party Claims was certain, though the quantification was not. Therefore, it did not fall under section 115JB(2) Explanation 1(c). The Tribunal directed the AO not to make any adjustment for this provision while computing tax liability u/s 115JB. Conclusion: The appeal of the assessee was allowed, with relief granted for both issues. The Tribunal directed the AO to give relief of Rs. 8,67,57,956/- for Provident Fund contributions and not to adjust Rs. 3,17,07,848/- for unidentified Motor Third Party Claims under section 115JB.
|
