9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 455X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itlement to deduction u/s. 80IA - Held that:- An identical issue was decided by us in favour of the assessee and against the revenue in assessee’s own case wherein we have held that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Velayuddhaswamy Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd (2010 (3) TMI 860 - Madras High Court) squarely apply on the facts of the case. Employees’ Contribution to Provident Fund, ESI - A.O. added the amount so paid/deposited after the due date - Held that:- This issue has to be decided in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court given in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014 (1) TMI 502 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ] - D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supporting evidence of its valuation. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-XIV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 70,29,821/- made u/s. 80IA of the Act. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-XIV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 2,05,491/- made on account of late payment of employees contribution to PF/ESI. 4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-XIV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 41,343/- made on account of sundry creditors! u/s. 41 (1) of the Act. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-XIV, Ahm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t b) Police Report c) Forensic Laboratory Report d) News Paper cutting of Divya Bhaskar dated 10.11.2009. 5. The A.O. found the aforementioned reply not complete. The A.O. was of the opinion that the assessee has not furnished any evidence to justify the claim of quantum of loss on account of fire. 6. The assessee was further asked to explain, assessee filed a detailed reply which reads as under:- Loss on account of Fire on 09.11.2009 Our client encloses herewith copy of fire claim made to United Insurance Co. Ltd. on estimated basis of ₹ 20260000/-. Thereafter the company has assessed about the actual losses suffered. We are instructed by our client to enclose herewith statement showing detai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spect of balance 50% of the disallowed amount. 11. Aggrieved by this, the revenue is before us. 12. The ld. D.R. cold not point out any factual error in the findings of the ld. CIT(A), ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated what has been stated before the lower authorities. 13. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. We have also gone through the factual matrix as demonstrated before the lower authorities. The undisputed fact is that the assessee was having both excisable and non-excisable goods. It is also not in dispute that both categories of goods were gutted in fire. We find that the A.O. was carried away with the quantification of loss by the Excise Department and completely ignored t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 012 wherein we have held that the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Velayuddhaswamy Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd (supra) squarely apply on the facts of the case. Respectfully following our own decision, we confirm the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss ground no. 2. 18. On further probe, the A.O. found that the assessee has not disputed Employees Contribution to Provident Fund, ESI on or before the due date. The A.O. accordingly added the amount so paid/deposited after the due date and made an addition of ₹ 2,05,491/-. 19. Before the First Appellate Authority, the assessee strongly relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306. The ld. CIT(A) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rding cessation of liability, the addition was accordingly deleted. 24. Before us, the ld. D.R. could not bring any demonstrative evidence which could show that the liabilities have ceased to exist merely because the creditors were outstanding for more than 3 years would not ipso facto justify the additions made u/s. 41(1) of the Act. Moreover, the assessee has successfully demonstrated that part of the outstanding creditors have already been taken as income. 25. Considering the facts in totality, we do not find any justification in the additions made u/s. 41(1) of the Act, the ld.CIT(A) has rightly deleted the impugned addition which requires no interference. 26. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
