9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,51,539/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of late deposit of employer's contribution to PF disregarding the fact that the payments were made beyond the due dates and were, therefore, not allowable u/s. 36(1)(va) and were to be treated as income u/s 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in contravention of the decision in the case of CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues Limited 215 CTR 150 (Bom)? 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in allowing depreciation @ 80% in respect of cylinder, valves and regulators as against 25% allowed by the Assessing Officer without appreciating the fact that these items termed as plant & machinery. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and paid taxes thereon. Later on, the case was picked up for scrutiny and notice was issued u/s. 143(2). The said company was merged with M/s. Indital Tintoria Ltd. in terms of the scheme of Amalgamation w.e.f. 28.02.2003. It has been stated that on the Amalgamation taking place, the brought forward losses of the said company are eligible for set off against the business profits of the assessee for the assessment year 2003-04 in terms of section 72A of the I.T. Act. The assessee company has claimed unabsorbed depreciation and business losses amounting to Rs. 27,95,48,422/- in the computation of taxable income. In the submissions made by the learned AR, the Assessing Officer found that the brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... F are given as under : Employers Contribution to PF: Amount Date of Deduction Due date of payment Actual Date Dharuhera Unit 245735 3103.02 15.04.03 18.04.03 Speedomax 77280 31.05.02 15.06.02 17.06.02 83472 31.08.02 15.09.02 6.09.02 81936 31.05.02 15.06.02 17.06.02 92903 31.08.02 15.09.02 16.09.02 77591 28.02.03 15.03.03 16.03.03 Automax Plant-II 20419 31.05.02 15.06.02 17.06.02 20138 31.10.02 15.11.02 7.11.02 20480 30.11.02 15.11.02 17.11.02 23104 31.03.03 15.04.03 16.04.03 2908 31.03.03 15.04.03 16.04.03 5573 30.06.02 21.07.02 23.07.02 Total 751539 The Assessing Officer, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a of the assessee while deleting the addition. On the other hand, the ld. AR of the assessee placed strong reliance on the appellate order. 6. We have heard and considered the arguments advanced by the parties and have gone through the orders of the authorities below, materials available on record and the decisions relied upon. 7. While considering the grievance of the Revenue in the light of provisions of law applicable to the issue and the rival contentions of the parties, we find that the Assessing Officer has disallowed the deduction with respect to employer's contribution to PF amounting to Rs. 7,51,539/- by rejecting the plea of the assessee that the employer's contribution to PF could legally be deposited within the grace period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er treatment plant & water pollution control equipment System 80% 25% 80% (in grounds of appeal 100% claim is shown ) (iii). Racks, Bins & Trolleys 25% 15% 25% (iv). Sewage Treatment Plant 100% 25% 100% (v). LPG Gas Plant in Speedomax 80% 25% 80% 10. We have heard and considered the arguments advanced by the parties and have gone through the orders of the authorities below and materials available on record. 11. As regards the depreciation on Cylinder, valves & regulators, the learned CIT(A) has allowed depreciation @ 80% in respect of gas cylinders including valves and regulators. He observed that the assessee had claimed depreciation on CO2 gas plant and has not restricted it to the cylinders valves and regulators. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovement of components inside and outside the workshop. These assets are used in a very rough manner. In our considered opinion, the ld. CIT(A) appears to have rightly allowed depreciation on these assets at the rate of 25% as against 15% allowed by the AO, particularly when the assessee has been claiming the same rate of depreciation under the category of plant & machinery since inception and there has been no litigation on this point in the history of the assessee. We, therefore, do not find any material to support the conclusion arrived at by the Assessing Officer and to interfere with the impugned order on this count. 14. Similarly, the AO had restricted the depreciation to 25% as against 100% claimed by the assessee on sewage treatment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
