9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 400X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. Addition on account of non-payment of provident fund dues - Held that:- As contended that the entire provident fund collected during the year under consideration upto February, 2002 was fully paid by the assessee and only the provident fund collected during the March was outstanding as on 31.03.2002 which was also paid in time on 08.04.2002. Also that this factual position can be verified by the A.O. from the documentary evidence available with the assessee-company and matter may be sent back to the A.O. for such verification. Thus find merit in this contention of the learned counsel for the assessee and since the learned DR has not raised any objection in this regard, restore this issue to the file of the A.O. for deciding the same afresh. Disallowance of cultivation expenses - Held that:- This matter requires verification by the A.O. keeping in view that there is a specific observation recorded by the A.O. in the assessment order that no such documentary evidence was produced by the assessee to show that the expenditure in question on cultivation was incurred for the existing plantation and not for any extension. I find merit in this contention of the learned DR. This i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. It is observed that even though the expenditure of ₹ 30,000/- in question incurred by the assessee for getting pollution control certificate for three years had an enduring benefit, the same by its very nature was revenue. I, therefore, find merit in the arguments of the learned counsel for the assessee that the said expenditure having been incurred in the revenue field and not in the capital, is allowable as deduction. The disallowance made by the A.O. and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue is accordingly deleted and Ground No. 1 of the assessee s appeal is allowed. 5. The issue involved in Ground No. 2 relates to the addition of ₹ 48,848/- made by the A.O. and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of disallowance and share transaction expenses. 6. The share transaction expenses of ₹ 48,848/- were claimed by the assessee as deduction on the ground that the same had been incurred in the business of investment that was carried on by it. According to the A.O., the income from sale of investment however was liable to tax under the head capital g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that this factual position can be verified by the A.O. from the documentary evidence available with the assessee-company and matter may be sent back to the A.O. for such verification. I find merit in this contention of the learned counsel for the assessee and since the learned DR has not raised any objection in this regard, I restore this issue to the file of the A.O. for deciding the same afresh after verifying the claim of the assessee that there was no outstanding amount payable on account of provident fund. Ground No. 3 is accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 11. The issue raised in Ground No. 4 relates to the addition of ₹ 1494668/- made by the A.O. and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of disallowance of cultivation expenses. 12. The claim of the assessee for deduction on account of cultivation expenses amounting to ₹ 14,94,668/- was examined by the A.O. On such examination, he found that the said expenses were incurred by the assessee on account of deepening drains, levelling soil in plantation, soil cutting etc. Since there was no documentary evidence filed by the assessee to establish that the said expenses were incurred for exist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egory, he brought to tax the entire income received by the assessee in account of interest. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the A.O. on this issue. 16. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. Although the learned counsel for the assessee has made an attempt to contend some of the deposits on which the interest income in question had been earned by the assessee were made for the purpose of business, I find merit in the contention of the learned DR that interest income received by the assessee on deposits cannot be held to be eligible for the benefit of Rule 8 as the same was not the result of integrated activity of cultivation and manufacture of tea carried on by the assesseecompany. I, therefore, find no merit in Ground No. 5 raised by the assessee in this appeal and dismiss the same. 17. The issue involved in Ground No. 6 relates to the disallowance of ₹ 1,59,845/- made by the A.O. and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 18. During the year under consideration, the assessee-company had earned a dividend income of ₹ 7,09,093/- which was claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
