9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 1130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nos. 264 & 418/Coch/2006 and ITA Nos. 922 & 923/Coch/2008 and four Cross Objections, viz. CO Nos. 119 to 122/Coch/2008. 2. Appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos. 922 & 923/Coch/2008 are delayed by 886 days. The assessee has filed petitions for condonation of delay adducing the reasons for late filing of appeals. After hearing rival submissions, we condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. 3. Since the cross appeals and cross objections arose in the case of the same assessee and the issues are more or less common or inter-connected, we have heard these matters together and are being disposed of by this common order, for the sake of convenience. 4. The only issue in ITA Nos. 200, 201, 202, 386 & 389/Coch/2006 and in ITA Nos. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uarely covered by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. in ITA No.262 of 2009 dated 09-09-2009. Therefore, respectfully following this decision, we decide the issue in favour of the assessee and against the Department. 7. In the Cross Objections, the asesse supports the order of the CIT(Appeals), who have allowed the claim of the assessee with regard to the payment of service charges to Government of Kerala and prays for confirming the order of the CIT(Appeals). Since, this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue in the appeals filed by the Revenue, these cross objections are dismissed as infructuous. 8. The other issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee. 10. In ITA No.922/Coch/2008, the next issue is regarding charging of 234B interest whereas in ITA No.923/Coch/2008, the remaining issue is regarding charging of interest u/s.234B and 234C. 11. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. On a scrutiny of the appellate order, we find that the CIT(Appeals) has directed the Assessing Officer to pass a speaking order giving reasons on the aspect in order to charge interest u/s.234B and 234C, in the order giving effect to the appellate order. Therefore, no grievance could be said to arise to the assessee at this stage. Therefore, we see no justification to interfere with the order of the CIT(Appeals) at this stage as it is only a direction. Accordingl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wherein the decisions were clearly in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue under the facts that employees contribution to Provident Fund were paid before the due date of filing of the return and hence it is an allowable deduction. Respectfully following the above cited decisions, we have no hesitation in setting aside the orders of the authorities below and allow the claim of the assessee on the issue of payment of employees provident fund. 13. On the issue of reopening urged by the assessee, it is to be decided against the assessee in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers reported in 291 ITR 500 as the original return of income was processed u/s.143(1) then only it was reopened ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
