Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (10) TMI 559

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 13 (7) TMI 414 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] - Revenue has neither disputed the claim of the assessee that the payments were made before the due date for filing the return nor brought any documentary evidence to rebut the assessee's claim on the issue - CIT (A) was justified in deleting the addition made on the premise that the claim of the assessee was found to be admissible – Decided in favor of Assessee. - ITA No.1686 of 2012 and CO No.73 of 2013, ITA No.1686/Bang/2012 - - - Dated:- 30-9-2013 - Shri N. Barthvajasankar And Shri George George K.,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Bijoy Kumar Panda, DR For the Respondent : Smt. Prathibha R, Adv. ORDER Per George George K. J.M. These appeals at the instance of the assessee and th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the assessee that in view of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court's judgment in the assessee's own case, 90% of the machining charges has to be reduced from the export turnover while computing the deduction u/s 80HHC. The assessee submitted that while calculating the deduction u/s 80HHC by applying Explanation (baa), the Assessing Officer is not required to exclude 90% of the machining charges to the tune of Rs.1,26,000. It was further submitted that if 90% is required to be excluded, then exclusion should be limited to net of machining charges being gross receipts less related expenses charged of in the P L a/c. The CIT (A) had, however, dismissed the plea of the assesse. The reasoning of the CIT (A) read as follows: "7.3 I have considered .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... assessee, being aggrieved, is in appeal before us. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. It is fairly admitted by the learned Counsel for the assessee that the issue, in question, is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the assessee's own case in ITA No.52 of 2009 and 182 to 185 of 2009 (judgment dated 18.08.2009). However, it was submitted by the learned AR that an SLP has been preferred against the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court and the same is pending for adjudication, and therefore, requested the Bench to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for a final decision in the case after the Hon'ble Supreme Court takes a view on the issue. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... us with its present cross objection. It was the case of the Revenue that the CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition on employees' contribution to PF and ESI as per the provisions of s.2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act and that deduction is allowable only where the payment to PF ESI has been made within the due date under the relevant Act. Our attention was also drawn by the Revenue to the effect that the earlier Bench of this Tribunal had vide its order dated 31.05.2013 in the case of DCIT v. Essae Teraka Pvt. Ltd, following the decisions of the ITAT, Kolkata in the case of (i) Bengal Chemical Pharmaceuticals Limited and of the Special Bench of Kolkata Tribunal in (ii) JCIT v. ITC Ltd on the issue of employees' contribution to PF an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dgments of the (i) Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Sabari Enterprises (supra) and (ii) the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Limited, the Hon'ble Court had ruled that- "8. Regard being had to the words 'due date' as interpreted in Sabari Enterprises case, and affirmed by the Apex Court in ALOM Extrusions Ltd., there can be no more doubt that the Assessing Officer as well as the revision authority fell in effort in disallowing the deduction of Rs.22,91,791/- being the employees' contribution remitted by the petitioner-employer-assessee both under the ESI and EPF Act, partly before 31/3/2006 in the financial year concerned and the balance before the filing of the returns u/s 139(1) of the Act as extended unto .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates