9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 919X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - ITAT, Mumbai ) which has been relied upon by the CIT(A) in holding that the premium paid in excess of face value of investments classified under HTM category, which has been amortized over the period till maturity, is allowable as ‘revenue expenditure’. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the CIT(A) - Decided against revenue. Disallowance of employees’ contribution of Provident Fund - CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance - Held that:- CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance following the judgement of Saleem Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd. (2006 (2) TMI 115 - MADRAS High Court ) and AIMIL Ltd. (2009 (12) TMI 38 - DELHI HIGH COURT ) to held the said contribution was paid before the due date of filing of return of income as per Section 139(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R.S. PADVEKAR, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. P. L. Pathade For the Respondent : Mr. Pramod Shingte ORDER PER G. S. PANNU, AM This appeal by the Revenue is directed against an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Nashik dated 22.05.2012 which, in turn, has arisen from an order dated 28.11.2011 passed by the Assessing Officer, under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ), pertaining to the assessment year 2009-10. 2. The first issue in this appeal is with regard to an addition of ₹ 55,600/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of amortization of premium of investments held till maturity (HTM) by the bank. In this regard the brief facts are that assessee is a Co-o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der of the CIT(A) following the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. (supra). Thus, on this Ground, Revenue fails. 5. The second Ground raised by the Revenue is with regard to the disallowance of ₹ 36,644/- representing employees contribution of Provident Fund which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that such contribution was paid beyond the due date specified under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee noticing that the contribution has been paid by the assessee within the grace period of five days under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and therefore it would not suffer any disallowance following the decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deducted at source on such payments. Thus, he invoked Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and disallowed such expenditure. 8. The CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance on the ground that such interest was paid to the members of the society and in terms of Section 194A(3)(v) of the Act, no tax was deductible at source. Thus, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has been set-aside. Against the aforesaid, Revenue is in appeal before us. 9. Section 194A of the Act provides for deduction of tax at source on payments by way of interest other than the interest on securities. The assessee before us is a co-operative society which is inter-alia engaged in the business of banking. Section 194A(3)(v) of the Act provides that the tax shal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A) as 07.03.2011) submitted by the Assessing Officer, the contention of the assessee has not been controverted. In this background, the CIT(A) has concluded that assessee had credited the impugned interest to the credit of the members, and no tax was required to be deducted in view of Section 194A(3)(v) of the Act. The aforesaid finding of the CIT(A) has not been controverted by the Revenue before us on the basis of any cogent material or reasoning. In the absence of any cogent material brought out by the Revenue, we hereby affirm the aforesaid conclusion of the CIT(A). Accordingly, the CIT(A) was justified in holding that on account of Section 194A(3)(v) of the Act, assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on the impugned payments and thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
