2019 (10) TMI 602 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction of amortisation of preliminary expenses u/s. 35D - HELD THAT - The impunged assessment year is not the first year of the assessee raising the instant amortization claim. It has come on record that the Assessing Officer had himself allowed the very relief of 20% in preceding assessment year whilst framing a regular assessment. The instant issue before us is therefore merely a consequential one since the earlier relief granted to the assessee hereinabove has attained finality. - Decided against revenue Disallowance u/s 14A - HELD THAT - Assessee was having interest free fund to the tune of ₹ 201 crores as against its investment made in Mutual Fund amounting to ₹ 5 lacs only. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. Considering the aforesaid facts on similar issue we do not find any merit in the ground of appeal of the Revenue, therefore, the same stand dismissed. - Decided against revenue Addition of unutilised CENVAT credit u/s. 145A - HELD THAT - There can hardly be any dispute in view of catena of above referred case law that the impugned addition is a revenue neutral case since any adjustment made in closing stock follows a consequential increase in opening stock of the succeeding assessment year as well. The assessee has already demonstrated during the course of lower appellate proceedings that there is no revenue effect either way if it follows inclusive or exclusive method qua the CENVAT credit. DR fails to rebut this clinching factual position. We therefore affirm the CIT(A) s findings under challenge. The Revenue fails in its last substantive ground as well. Disallowance being the amount of Employees contribution to Provident Fund and ESI u/s. 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) - addition was made as the assessee has deposited the Employees contribution to Provident Fund as well as ESI after the due date prescribed in the relevant Act - HELD THAT - After following the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation 2014 (1) TMI 502 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT we do not find any merit in the appeal of the assessee as the assessee shall not be entitled to deduction of such sum in computing the income until such sum is credited by the assessee to the employees account in the relevant fund or funds on or before the due date prescribed in the relevant Act. Therefore, this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance u/s. 35D
2. Disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the I. T. Rule
3. Disallowance of unutilised CENVAT credit
4. Disallowance of Employees' contribution to Provident Fund and ESI

Issue 1: Disallowance u/s. 35D
The assessee claimed expenses of ?65,57,172/- as public issue expenses u/s. 35D of the Act. The AO disallowed the claim, stating it was for increasing the authorized capital, not allowable under Sec. 35D. The CIT(A) allowed the claim, leading to the appeal. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on precedents and the Act's provisions.

Issue 2: Disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the I. T. Rule
The AO disallowed ?12,130/- u/s. 14A as the assessee claimed ?76,108/- as exempt dividend income without incurring related expenses. The CIT(A) deleted ?9,630/- of the disallowance, restricting it to ?2,500/- for administrative expenses. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on the assessee's interest-free funds and investment amounts.

Issue 3: Disallowance of unutilised CENVAT credit
The AO added ?90,72,239/- to the total income for unutilized CENVAT credit, citing the exclusive method used by the assessee. The CIT(A) deleted the addition based on ITAT decisions. The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, citing the revenue-neutral nature of the case and the inclusive/exclusive method's impact on closing stock.

Issue 4: Disallowance of Employees' contribution to Provident Fund and ESI
The AO disallowed ?41,38,742/- and ?6,859/- for late deposit of Employees' contribution to Provident Fund and ESI. The CIT(A) sustained the disallowance, and the ITAT upheld it based on a Gujarat High Court decision. The appeal of both the Revenue and the assessee was dismissed.

In conclusion, the ITAT Ahmedabad addressed various disallowances under different sections of the Income Tax Act, upholding decisions based on legal provisions, precedents, and factual considerations. The judgments provided detailed analyses of each issue, ensuring a fair and lawful resolution in each case.