9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 723X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in deleting the disallowance of share issue expenses of ₹ 23,23,312/- u/s35D of the I.T. Act. 2. The ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(A)-XIV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of deferred revenue expenditure of ₹ 31,97,153/- 3. The ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(A)-XIV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to verify the facts and if payments were made within the grace period, if should be allowed." 2. The first and second ground are deletion of ₹ 23,23,312/- u/s. 35D and ₹ 31,97,153/- in deleting the deferred revenue expenditure on account of share issue expenses. 3. The Ld. Representative of the party submitted that first issue is identical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I of ₹ 97,711/-. The Ld. AR relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble apex court in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusims Ltd. 319 ITR 306 (SC). 6. After hearing Ld. Representatives of the parties, we are of the view that if employee's contribution to PF and ESI before due date filing of return, the same is allowable. The AO is directed to verify the payment and allow accordingly. 7. In the result appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Coming to ITA No.1039/Ahd/2007 by assessee. 8. This is an appeal by the assessee. The assessment involved in this appeal is 2000-01. The appeal is instituted against the order of the CIT(A)-XIV, Ahmedabad, dated 05-05-2007. Ground reproduced as under:- "1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6/- ought to have been allowed as revenue expenditure u/s.37 of the Act. 7. Alternatively and without prejudice ₹ 9,94,421/- ought to have been allowed u/s 37 of the Act. 8. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of AO in not granting deduction u/s.80IA of the Act on 'other income' of ₹ 6,86,96,665/-. 9. Alternatively and without prejudice, only net 'other income' and not the gross may kindly be allowed to be taken out from the calculations of the profits of the business. 10. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and o facts in confirming the action of AO in expanding the scope of set aside proceedings in respect of claim of deduction u/s.80HHC of the Act and made a larger disallowance, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding mandatory satisfaction as contemplated under the Act." 9. Ground No.1, 2 & 3 have not been pressed by Ld. AR therefore same are dismissed as not pressed. 10. Ground No.4 is in respect of not allowing set of interest income from share application money of ₹ 1,71,30,212/- against public issue expenses. 11. At the outset, Ld. AR submitted that this issue is covered by the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in TAX Appeal No.315 of 2010, wherein the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has held:- "11. Coming back to the facts of the case, we ma9y reiterate that the assessee was statutorily required to keep share application money in the separate account till the allotment of shares was completed. Interest earned on such se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(Appeals) followed his order for A.Y 2000-01 and confirmed the condition subject to remark "if the assessee's claim is accepted by Assessing Officer in earlier year" for which the matter has been remitted back. The assessee shall entitle to approach before Ld. CIT(Appeals) for rectification. At the out set, Ld. AR submitted that this issue is covered by the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) in A.Y 2000-01 in assessee's own case reported in the case of Shri Rama Multi Tech Ltd. v. ACIT (2005) 92 TTJ 568 (Ahd), wherein the ITAT has sent back the issue to the file of Assessing Officer with certain direction. Identical ground has also decided in A.Y. 1998-99 in para No.10 to 10.6 Since the facts are identical we respectfully following the order of IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss provisions of written back bonus are related to profit and loss account. In other wards, the income is derived from industrial undertakings and business income we therefore allow the deduction u/s.80HHC of the Act on these items. AO is directed accordingly. 15. Ground No.10 is in respect of disallowance of deduction u/s.80HHC. Ld. AR has not pressed this ground therefore same is dismissed as not pressed. 16. Ground No.11 & 12 are general in nature requires no finding. 17. Grounds No.13 & 14 are also not pressed by Ld. AR hence both are dismissed as not pressed. 18. Ground No.15 is related to disallowance of ₹ 12.40,050/- being part of the share debentures issue expenses. 19. After hearing Ld. Representatives we find that ident ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
