Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 134 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of amount paid to EPF Held that - Following CIT vs.- Alom Extrusions Ltd. 2009 (11) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT Retrospective amendment to section 43B - The second proviso resulted in implementation problems and which resulted in the enactment of Finance Act, 2003, deleting the second proviso and bringing about uniformity in the first proviso by equating tax, duty, cess and fee with contributions to welfare funds. Once this uniformity is brought about in the first proviso, then, the Finance Act, 2003, which is made applicable by the Parliament only with effect from 1st April, 2004, would become curative in nature, hence, it would apply retrospectively with effect from 1st April, 1988 - Remit the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the matter afresh. Disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) Held that - Following Merilyn Shipping & Transport vs. ACIT 2012 (4) TMI 290 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM Matter restored to the file of Assessing Officer for adjudication denovo - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Disallowance of delay in payment of E.P.F. 2. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). Analysis: Issue 1: Disallowance of delay in payment of E.P.F. The assessee challenged the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s order regarding the disallowance of Rs.55,462 for delay in payment of E.P.F. The Tribunal noted that the disallowance was based on a decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, which had been subsequently reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in another case. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in light of the Supreme Court's decision. Consequently, Ground No. 1 was allowed for statistical purposes. Issue 2: Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) The assessee also contested the disallowance of Rs.42,26,099 under section 40(a)(ia), which included an amount payable as on a specific date. The Departmental Representative acknowledged that this issue was covered by a Special Bench decision of the Tribunal in a different case. It was agreed that the matter should be sent back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication based on the Tribunal's decision after verifying the facts. Therefore, Ground No. 2 was also allowed for statistical purposes. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes on both issues, and the matters were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with the relevant legal decisions.
|