9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 545X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... labour charges - dis-allowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - assessee now placing reliance on decision in case of Merilyn Shipping & Transport - Held that:- Since issue raised in this ground does not arise from the order of CIT(A), hence, impugned order is not interfered with - Decided partly in favor of assessee - ITA No.1961/Del./2012 - - - Dated:- 6-7-2012 - SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, JJ. Assessee by : Shri Ranjan Chopra, CA Revenue by : Shri K.V.K. Singh, Sr. DR ORDER PER U.B.S. BEDI, J.M. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-XXIII, New Delhi dated 21.02.2012 relevant to assessment year 2008-09, in which in all seven grounds have been raised whereas ground no.1, 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd., 321 I.T.R. 508 (Del.) as well by Hon ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd., 319 I.T.R. 306 (SC). Therefore, addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) should be deleted. 3. Ld.DR could not controvert this factual aspect of the matter. 4. After hearing both the sides, considering the material on record, we find that it to be undisputed fact that contribution towards employees provident fund was paid before the due date for filing of the return and both the decisions cited by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee supports the view in favou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m interest on late payment of sale bills and miscellaneous income of ₹ 77,400/- as income from other sources thereby disallowing the deduction u/s 80IC of the Act when both these receipts arose directly from the undertaking . Therefore, relying upon the following decisions, it was pleaded for deletion of then impugned addition: - CIT vs. Govinda Choudhary and Sons 203 I.T.R. 881 (SC) - CiT vs. Poddar Pigments Ltd. (2010) 41 DTR 390 (Del.) - CIT vs. Advance Detergents Ltd. (2010) (Del.) - CIT vs. Arvind Constructions Co. ltd. 317 I.T.R. 276 (Del.) - CIT vs. TVS Sundaram Iyendar, 222 I.T.R. 344 (SC) 9. Ld. DR relied on the order of the CIT(A) and pleaded for its confirmation. It was also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le on income computed by the Assessing Officer from a particular source and not from the income as computed by the appellant, therefore, orders of authorities below should be reversed and deduction u/s 80IC be allowed. Reliance was placed on the following judgments by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee: - Meha Medicure vs. ITO I.T. Act, 1961 No.3420/Mum/2011 - M/s UKT Software Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, ITA No.5425/Del./2010 - Plastibends India Ltd. vs. ADIT Others 318 I.T.R. 353 (Bom)(FB) - Mandhana Exports (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT 2002, 76 TTJ 559 (Mum). 12. Ld.DR strongly relied upon the orders of the authorities below and pleaded for confirmation of the impugned order. 13. After hearing bot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
