9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 1165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). ITA No.4159/Del/2006. 2. We first take up the appeal of the assessee. The assessee is engaged in the business of export and import of sugar and its by-products as a merchant exporter. 3. First ground of appeal is against disallowance of deduction under section 80HHC in respect of DEPB credit. At the time of hearing this ground was not pressed and hence for want of prosecution ground No.1 is dismissed. 4. Ground No.2 is against disallowance of ₹ 15,22,234/- being payment on account of Provident Fund payments. The assessee is having a registered Provident Fund Trust wherein the assessee had been depositing employer's contribution to provident fund. The contribution ₹ 15,22,234/- inter alia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 2(38) the phrase "Recognized Provident Fund" means a provident fund which has been and continues to be recognized by the CCIT or CIT in accordance with the rules contained in Part A of the Fourth Schedule, and includes a provident fund established under a scheme framed under the Employee's Provident Funds act, 1952. The deduction allowable under section 36(1)(iv) speaks about deduction by an assessee as an employer by way of contribution to a recognized provident fund. The letter filed by the assessee does not speak about the recognition granted by the CIT to the said trust and therefore, the trust is to be considered as not recognized by the department. Therefore, the disallowance is to be confirmed. 6. The learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terial available on record. Section 36(1)(iv) provides as under:- "(iv) any sum paid by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution towards a recognized provident fund or an approved superannuation fund, subject to such limits as may be prescribed for the purpose of recognizing the provident fund or approving the superannuation fund, as the case may be; and subject to such conditions as the Board may think fit to specify in cases where the contributions are not in the nature of annual contributions of fixed on some definite basis by reference to the income chargeable under the head "Salaries" or to the contributions or to the number of members of the fund;" Reading the aforesaid section it is clear that to cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me. 10. The learned CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer was justified in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT, 284 ITR 323 wherein it was held that the Assessing Officer is justified in ignoring the revised computation filed during assessment proceedings as the claims can be made by filing revised return only. 11. We have heard the parties. The assessee filed revised computation to exclude interest on refund, which was originally granted by taking the loss on export as `Nil'. However, later on as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ipca Laboratory Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT, 266 ITR 521, the assessee may not be allowed deduction under section 80HHC and hence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t deletion of addition made on account of revising the value of closing stock. 15. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee is following method of valuation of stock on the basis of cost or market price whichever is lower. In A.Y. 1993-94 the method of valuation of closing stock adopted was rejected and the closing stock was valued at cost price. Therefore, if the value is adopted on cost price, there is under valuation which is required to be added to the income of the assessee. The learned CIT(A) held that for A.Y. 1993-94 though the addition was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the same was deleted by ITAT Delhi in ITA No.4362/Del/1996 and the method of valuation adopted by the assessee was accepted. Following the said order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pen. We, therefore, sustain the deletion of disallowance. 19. Ground No.3 is against disallowance of loss on account of re- statement of foreign exchange assets. The assessee had shown in the profit & loss account income of ₹ 22,00,632/- and ₹ 62,50,634/- as loss in foreign currency in respect of shipment made in the last year but realized during the year. The difference being fluctuation in price of dollars was held not allowable by treating the same as notional. The learned CIT(A) held that the rate per dollar as on 31.3.2002 was ₹ 48.55 and the same as on 31.3.2003 was ₹ 47.29 per dollar. Therefore, the foreign exchange assets at the closing rate were to be valued according to AS-2. Any loss on re- statement of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
