2016 (10) TMI 708 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of contributions of the employees towards ESI & PF - Held that - As it is stated by the learned Counsel for the assessee that the payment was made before the date of filing of the return of income by the assessee. Further, we find that this issue is also covered by the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusion, reported in (2009 (11) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT ) wherein it has been held that both the employees as well as employers contribution are allowable as deduction u/s 36(1)(va) provided assessee makes the payment before due date of filing of return. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance and addition made by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act for A.Y 2010-11.
2. Failure to respond during remand proceedings.
3. Disallowance of share application money u/s 68.
4. Disallowance of ESI & P.F. contributions.
5. Disallowance of depreciation.
6. Verification of share application money.
7. Claim of depreciation on investment subsidy.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was against the order confirming disallowance and addition made by the AO for A.Y 2010-11. The assessee raised seven grounds of appeal, challenging various aspects of the CIT (A)'s decision.

2. The contention was that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity during remand proceedings. However, it was found that the assessee had multiple chances to present evidence but failed to do so. Hence, these grounds were rejected.

3. The AO treated share application money as unexplained credits u/s 68 due to lack of evidence on the source of income of investors. The Tribunal remanded this issue to verify if the share application money was received in the relevant A.Y.

4. The disallowance of ESI & P.F. contributions was challenged citing favorable judgments. The Tribunal allowed this ground based on precedents supporting deductions if payments were made before the due date of filing returns.

5. The disallowance of depreciation on the investment subsidy was contested, with the Tribunal ruling in favor of the assessee based on a previous decision. The Tribunal held that the subsidy was not intended to meet the cost of assets, allowing the claim for depreciation.

6. The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, remanding the issue of share application money for further verification and allowing the grounds related to ESI & P.F. contributions and depreciation on the investment subsidy.

This detailed analysis covers the key issues and outcomes of the judgment, addressing the legal arguments and decisions made by the Tribunal in each aspect of the case.