9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (5) TMI 866 - HC - Income Tax10% disallowance of the expenditure on doctors - CIT(A) deleted the addition as confirmed by ITAT - Held that - The Tribunal has agreed with the detailed reasoning given by the CIT (Appeals) for deleting the disallowance. Upon a consideration of the materials on the record, we do not find the said reasoning as unacceptable. - Decided against revenue. Delayed payment of employer s contribution under Section 43B - Tribunal deleting the addition - Held that - From a perusal of the order of the Tribunal, it is evident that while doing so it has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vinay Cements Limited 2007 (3) TMI 346 - Supreme Court of India which decision has been reiterated in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009 (11) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT). - Decided against revenue.
Issues:
1. Disallowance of 10% expenditure on doctors 2. Deletion of addition against delayed payment of employer's contribution under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act Issue 1: Disallowance of 10% expenditure on doctors The appeal challenges the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, which dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the deletion of 10% expenditure on doctors by the CIT (Appeals). The Revenue argued that the Assessing Officer's reasoning for the disallowance was valid. However, both the CIT (Appeals) and the ITAT upheld the deletion of the disallowance based on detailed reasoning. The High Court found the reasoning provided by the CIT (Appeals) acceptable upon reviewing the materials on record. Issue 2: Deletion of addition against delayed payment of employer's contribution under Section 43B The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in deleting the addition related to delayed payment of employer's contribution under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, citing the omission of the second proviso with effect from 1.4.2004. The matter pertained to the assessment year 2003-04, and the Revenue argued that the second proviso should apply. However, the Tribunal relied on a Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Vinay Cements Limited, which was reaffirmed in another case. The High Court noted that the law had been settled by the Supreme Court, rendering the Revenue's argument invalid. Consequently, the High Court found no substantial question of law in the appeal and dismissed it. In summary, the High Court of Patna dismissed the appeal challenging the ITAT's order regarding the disallowance of 10% expenditure on doctors and the deletion of addition against delayed payment of employer's contribution under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act. The Court found the reasoning behind both decisions acceptable and concluded that no substantial question of law arose in the case.
|
