9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 1092X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 1,82,77,138 on account of delayed payment of PF of employees contribution. 2. We have heard the parties. We find that the assessee has made payment beyond due date as provided under the employees provident fund s Act but the payments are made before filing of return of income. We further find that the assessee has paid the PF dues in some months within the grace period allowed. Now, this issue stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Aloum Extrusion Ltd. 319 ITR 306. The said decision has been followed by the ITAT C Bench Mumbai in the case of M/s. Pinkpen P. Ltd. Vs. CIT in ITA no.6847/Mum/2008 dated 28.8.2010. The operative part of the Tribunal s order on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in giving relief of ₹ 4 lacs on account of staff welfare expenditure without appreciating the fact that the auditor had himself reported that these expenditure was not covered u/s.40A(9). 5. In the Tax Audit Report the Auditors have observed that the following payments are not allowed as per sec. 40A(9) of the Act:- i) Officer s club ₹ 2,00,000/- ii) Staff club ₹ 2,00,000/- ---------------------- ₹ 4,00,000/- ============= 6. The assessee explained to the A.O. that the said expenditure has been incurred for the celebration of sports and cultural activities on the occasion on the Independence Day and several other occasions. The A.O. d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d deletion. 9. We have heard the parties. We find that this issue has already been decided in favour of the assessee in the preceding years. We further find that the assessee has executed the bonds in favour of the bank as a guarantee against the borrowings. The A.O. treated the said expenditure and made the disallowance. 10. We find that the Government of India agreed to provide guarantee on the borrowings made by the assessee company to the extent of ₹ 100 crore and on the said guarantee bond and the assessee was required to pay the stamp duty. In our opinion, the said expenditure is a revenue expenditure and hence allowable u/s.37(i). Accordingly, order of the Ld. CIT (A) is confirmed and ground no.3 is dismissed. 11. In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
