9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd part thereof. The assessee was incorporated on 31.12.1998 with the object of taking over the business of M/S. Veekay Industries, a partnership firm as a going concern along with all the assets and liabilities. The business of M/S. Veekay Industries was succeeded by the assessee company on 1.2.99 and all the assets and liabilities were acquired by Pik Pen Pvt. Ltd., the present assessee. The partners of the firm were allotted shares in the company towards the consideration of the business. The assessee filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2005-06 which was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was framed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act. It was noticed by the A.O that the assessee had claimed the depreciation of Rs. 64,47,656/- at 25% of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o Section 43(1) and the same issue was before the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the A.Y. 1999-2000, 2004- 05 being ITA No. 2218/Mum/2006, ITA No. 7484/Mum/2005, ITA No. 6026/Mum/2004, ITA No. 2219/Mum/2006 and ITA No. 1658 & 1659/Mum/2007. On the perusal of the order of the Tribunal, we find that the Tribunal has set aside the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication for the verification of the fact as to whether prior approval of the Joint CIT was obtained or not as per Explanation-3 to Sec. 43(1). As this is the recurring issue and consistently arising in the preceding years, we consider it fit this year also to restore the issue to the file of the Ld CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in the light of the direction given in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... then only it can be said that for maintaining the industrial relations, the assessee had given donations. Nothing is placed before us to support the contention of the assessee. In our opinion, no interference is called for and we accordingly confirm the disallowance and dismiss the Ground No. 3 & 4. 7. The next issue is regarding the bad debts/balance written off of Rs. 2,96,136/- by treating it as a capital loss. 8. We have heard the parties. The assessee has debited to the Profit & Loss A/C. an amount of Rs. 2,96,135/- on account of bad debts/balance written off. The assessee explained that the said amount represented the amount advanced to Balaji Pens Pvt. Ltd., for machinery and as the machinery was not supplied, and hence, the un-rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee and delete the addition of Rs. 2,96,135/- treating the same as a revenue expenditure u/s. 37(1) of the Act as admittedly, no capital asset came into existence. 10. The next issue is disallowance of Employees Contribution to PF and ESIC of Rs. 43,721/-. The short controversy before us is in respect of the payment of the Employees Contribution to P.F./E.S.I.C beyond the Grace period which was relating to the month of February. The Ld Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s. Alom Extrusion Ltd., 319 ITR 306. The A.O made the disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) as he was of the opinion that the Employees Contribution to PF/ESIC even if made before filing of the return of income is not covered u/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
