9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 641X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court: "(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in upholding the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 19,39,017/u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the CIT(A) holding that if the TDS payment is made before the due date of filing of the return of income, then the same is allowable as an expenditure, without considering the fact that the relevant portion of the Memorandum explaining the provisions of Finance Bill, 2010 clearly states that the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) allowing deduction for the payment, on which TDS has been made and paid into Govt. Account before the due date for furnishing the return of income is to take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or rescinded by the amendment by Finance Act, 2010 and hence stood rightly applied by the Assessing Officer? (iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in upholding the deletion by the CIT(A) of disallowance of employees' contribution towards P.F. and ESIC of Rs. 3,14,12,313/- and provision for employees' contribution towards P.F. & ESIC of Rs. 43,88,453/-, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 306 (SC), without appreciating the fact that in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd. the controversy before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was with respect to employer's contribution as per Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , without appreciating that with respect to the sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of subclause (x) of clause (24) of Section 2 apply, the assessee shall be entitled to deduction in computing the income referred to in Section 28 with respect to such sum credited by the assessee to the employees' account in the relevant fund or funds on or before the "due date" mentioned in Explanation to Section 36(1)(va), as held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported at [2014] 41 Taxmann.com 100 (Gujarat)?" 2. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed ereturn of income on 29.9.2009 declaring total income of Rs. 42,25,34,110/-. The said return was p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 27.9.2013 dismissed the appeal of the revenue by stating that "there is no fallacy in the findings of the CIT(A) because now this issue is squarely covered by the decisions of ALOM EXTRUSIONS (319 ITR 306) (SC) and P.M. ELECTRONICS (313 ITR 161) (Del)". 2.4 During the course of assessment proceedings, on verification of details of TDS along with the return of income, the Assessing Officer noticed that TDS amount of Rs. 19,39,017/was deducted but the same was not deposited within time allowed under Section 200(1) of the Act in the Government Account. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the said amount under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added the same t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her contended that the Tribunal has committed error in ignoring the judgement of this Court cited by the appellant and dismissing the appeal. In that view of the matter, he submitted that the order of the Tribunal is required to be set aside. 5. We have heard learned advocate Mr. Parikh for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. Jaimin Dave for the respondent assessee. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Tax Appeal No. 637 of 2013 and allied matters. Learned advocate Mr. Jaimin Dave has stated that they are not knowing as to whether any appeal is preferred against the said decision and he has stated that other High Courts have taken different views which was referred to in paragraph No. 5.1 of the said order. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
