9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not paid before the due date of filing of return of income. 2. That the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the additions to the assets during the year ignoring the fact that the assessee could not furnish the working of the depreciation as per I.T. Act / Rules during the course of assessment proceedings. 3. That the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in directing the AO to adopt the value of assets received from its parent company IPPCL at Rs. 834.01 crores though the value of these assets was found at Rs. 671.94 crores as per the details filed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. 4. That the order of ld. Commissioner of Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er scheme on 12.08.2003. Hence, this amount of Rs. 171 crores was the opening balance simply inherited by the assessee. The liability incurred during the year was paid by the assessee before filing of return and was claimed in terms of provisions of section 43B of the IT Act to the extent of Rs. 9,09,20,200/-. The ld. CIT(A), therefore, found that this amount of PF liability was fully paid and rightly claimed u/s. 43B of the IT Act and, therefore, directed to allow deduction. 4. The ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and submitted that only debit note was issued, which would not prove the payment of the above amount and debit note is dated 28.12.2005. Therefore, it should not be treated as payment made before filing of the return. Earl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany Ltd. (supra) and was held to be sufficient compliance u/s. 43B of the IT Act. It is well settled law for deduction u/s. 43B that the deduction is allowable on actual payment and when PF contributions are made before filing of the return, the same is allowable deduction. We rely upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. P.M. Electronics Ltd., 313 ITR 161 and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vinay Cement Limited, 213 CTR 268 and CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd., 319 ITR 306. In view of the above discussion, this ground of appeal of the Revenue has no merit and is dismissed. 6. On the remaining grounds, the issue of depreciation has been raised. The assessee agitated the disallowance of de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding the arithmetical correctness of working out depreciation. 7. The ld. DR merely relied upon the order of the AO without pointing out any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). On the other hand, the ld. Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and referred to PB-10 and PB-36 in support of the contentions raised before the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee on transfer scheme received the assets of Rs. 834.01 crores. 8. On consideration of the above, we do not find any merit in these grounds of appeal of the revenue. The assessee has filed details of aggregate assets and liabilities which were received on 31.03.2003 and the net fixed assets received on transfer scheme was Rs. 834.01 crores and the assessee clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
