2016 (1) TMI 1487 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 10B - receipts from international recruitment services - whether receipts were covered within the meaning of export of article or things or computer software and were not eligible for deduction under Section 10B of the Act? - HELD THAT - Issue stands answered in the Assessee s own case in its favour by the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-II v. M. L. Outsourcing Services (P) Ltd. 2014 (9) TMI 396 - DELHI HIGH COURT for AY 2007-08. The ITAT has in fact followed the said decision while deciding the question in favour of the Assessee. It is stated that the Revenue has gone in an appeal against the said decision to the Supreme Court and the said appeal is pending. Consequently the Court declines to frame a question on this issue. Delayed Employees contribution to the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) and the Employees State Insurance Scheme (ESI) - deemed as the employer s income u/s 2(24)(x) of the Act and which is subject to deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act is also governed by section 43B of the Act - HELD THAT - Revenue seeks to place reliance on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation 2014 (1) TMI 502 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT which according to him decides the issue in favour of the Revenue. However there are numerous decisions of this Court that have answered the very question in favour of the Assessee. These include CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. 2009 (12) TMI 38 - DELHI HIGH COURT CIT v. P.M. Electronics Ltd. 2008 (11) TMI 3 - DELHI HIGH COURT CIT v. Vinay Cement Ltd. 2007 (3) TMI 346 - SC ORDER and CIT v. Dharmendra Sharma 2007 (11) TMI 39 - DELHI HIGH COURT - Consequently the Court declines to frame the question.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for receipts from international recruitment services.
2. Treatment of employees' contribution to EPF and ESI under Section 43B of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The first issue pertains to the disallowance of Rs.63,75,900 under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act. The court noted that a similar issue had been decided in favor of the Assessee in a previous case, Commissioner of Income Tax-II v. M. L. Outsourcing Services (P) Ltd. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had followed this decision while ruling in favor of the Assessee in the present case. As the Revenue had appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, the court declined to frame a question on this issue, ultimately dismissing the appeal.

2. The second issue concerns the treatment of employees' contribution to the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) and the Employees State Insurance Scheme (ESI) under Section 43B of the Act. The Revenue sought to rely on a decision of the Gujarat High Court, which they believed favored their position. However, the court pointed out several decisions by the Delhi High Court that had ruled in favor of the Assessee on this matter. These decisions included CIT v. AIMIL Ltd., CIT v. P.M. Electronics Ltd., CIT v. Vinay Cement Ltd., and CIT v. Dharmendra Sharma. Consequently, the court declined to frame the question on this issue as well, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal based on the above analysis of the two issues raised by the Revenue. The judgment highlighted the precedence set by previous decisions and the lack of grounds to question the rulings in favor of the Assessee in both instances.