9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SIC payments had been made because of the statutory provisions i.e. Sec. 43B which was in respect of employer’s contribution and Sec.36(1)(v) r.w.s. 2(24) (x) in the case of employee’s contribution which have been deemed to be the assessee’s income. The Hon'ble High Court held that the disallowance was added back by the Assessing Officer which has increased in the business profits of the assessee and exemption u/s. 10A is allowable with reference to such enhanced income. We, therefore, following the principles laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. (supra) allow the plea of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to consider the said addition for the purpose of computing the deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act. - ITA No. 1748/PN/2012 & ITA No. 1751/PN/2012 - - - Dated:- 30-10-2013 - SHRI G. S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant: Shri M.K. Kulkarni For the Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain ORDER PER R.S. PADVEKAR, JM:- These two cross appeals one by the assessee and another by the revenue are filed challenging the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(A), K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the A.Ys. 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 being ITA Nos. 766/PN/2009, 254/PN/2008, 431/PN/2007 and 435/PN/2007. The Ld. CIT(A) also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of ABG Heavy Engg. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010) 37 DTR (Bom) 233. The operative part of the order of Ld. CIT(A) is as under: I have perused the submission of the appellant and relevant order of the Hon'ble Tribunal. I find that the disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act made by the A.O. for A. Y, 2003- 04 to 2006-07, which was confirmed by CIT(A), was allowed by Hon'ble ITAT, Pune Bench, Pune in favour of the appellant in the above referred order of the Hon'ble Tribunal. While deciding the issue, the Hon'ble Tribunal relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court pronounced on 15/02/2010 in the case of ABG Heavy Engg Ltd reported in 37 DTR (Bom) 233. 1 find that there is no change in the facts and circumstances or nature of the business carried on by the appellant for the year under consideration as was for the A. Y. 2003-04 to A. Y. 2006-07. The Hon'ble MP High Court, in the case of Agarwal Warehousing and Leasing Ltd V/s CIT, 257 I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsists of interest payment of ₹ 1,85,16,416/-. In the opinion of the Assessing Officer if the above funds were utilized for repayment of the borrowed funds the interest burden of the company would have reduced proportionately. The Assessing Officer, therefore, invoked the provisions of Sec. 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules, 1962 worked out the disallowance at ₹ 3,00,558/- and the profits of the company would have shown increased figures. As per the formula given in para no. 8.2 in the assessment order the Assessing Officer worked out disallowance u/s. 14A. The assessee challenged the said addition before the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. The reasons and findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are as under: I also find that the A. O. has worked out the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act by applying the provisions of Rule 8 D of the I. T. Rules. The HonTale Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg Co Ltd. Vs DCIT (2010) 328 ITR 81 (Bom), it is held by the Hon'ble Court that the provisions of Rule 8D of the I. T. Rules have been inserted by IT (Fifth Amendment) Rules 2008, which were notified to come in to force on 24.3.2008. Law which wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without success. 9. We have heard the parties and perused the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions by giving following reasons: I find that though the addition made by the A.O. was on ad hoc basis, without specifying any defects in the books of account, it is also seen that the appellant admitted that he could not substantiate each every vouchers/bills made by A.O. on test check basis and the appellant has agreed to a disallowance as deemed fit by the A.O. Having acquiesced to suitable quantum of disallowance without specifying the parameters to determine the appropriateness of the A.O. s decisions, the appellant cannot turn around and start picking holes in the Assessing Officer s decision. Moreover, nothing has been produced in appellate stage before me to justify assailing of disallowances. The fact remains that the appellant did not have the necessary vouchers or bills which would support all the expenses claimed under these heads. Under the circumstances, this ground of appeal is dismissed and decided against the appellant . 10. There is no dispute that the disallowances are made on ad hoc basis. The Learned Counsel submits that ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
