9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1685X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12, he has deleted the said disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. No infirmity in the said findings of the ld. CIT(A) hence the same is confirmed and ground taken by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. Addition towards the late deposit of contribution to PF and ESI - Held that:- CIT(A) has returned a finding that the payments have been made before due date of filing of the return of income and following the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (2014 (8) TMI 677 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT) and CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur [2014 (5) TMI 222 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT], he has corre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act that it was made as per provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act, 1961. 2. In ground No. 1, the Revenue has challenged the deletion of addition made by the AO u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D of the I.T. Rule, 1962. 3. At the outset, the ld. AR submitted that there are no fresh investments which have been made during the year under consideration and all the investments have been carried forward from the earlier years. It was further submitted that in the earlier years, the matter has been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee s own favour and same has been followed by the ld. CIT(A) in the impunged assessment year and given that there are no changes in the facts and circumstances of the case, the same should be followed. In this rega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reduced to ₹ 2,08,456/- by the ld. CIT(A) whereby he allowed setting off of interest income from gross interest expenses while work out disallowance u/s 14A. We find that no fresh investments have been made by the assessee company during the year and the subject investments are the investments which have been made by and taken over from the partnership firm M/s KGK Enterprises. On similar lines, the AO has made a disallowance in the instant case. In case of KGK Enterprises for AY 2010-11 (in ITA No. 797/JP/15 dated 11.08.2016), we have already taken a view that disallowance under the provisions of Section 14A are not warranted and the relevant findings are contained at para 2.4 of our order which is reproduced as under:- 2.4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in case of KGK Enterprises referred supra, the disallowance under section 14A is hereby deleted. The grounds no. 1 and 2 of assessee s appeal are thus allowed. 10. In respect of grounds no. 1 2 relating to disallowance u/s 14A, we find that earlier investment have been carried forward to this year and further, the assessee company has made a fresh investment of ₹ 2,36,98,875 (Rs 5,74,25,200/- less ₹ 3,37,26,325/-) during the year under consideration. In this regard, the submission of the assessee is that such investment has been made from internal accruals and not from any borrowed funds and no expenditure has been incurred by the assessee company. In this regard, the Assessing officer following the same reasoning ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee s own case for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12, he has deleted the said disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. We do not see any infirmity in the said findings of the ld. CIT(A) hence the same is confirmed and ground taken by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 8. In ground No. 3, the Revenue has challenged the deletion of addition of ₹ 2,24,684/- towards the late deposit of contribution to PF and ESI. The ld. CIT(A) has returned a finding that the payments have been made before due date of filing of the return of income and following the decision of Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (2013) 35 taxman.com 616 and CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur 265 CTR 471, he has dire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of section 36(1)(va) of the Act, 1961. 11. Admittedly, under identical set of facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer had made disallowance u/s 14A read with rule 8D, ad-hoc disallowance of ₹ 8,24,558/- on account of unverifiable expenses and addition of ₹ 1,17,269/- towards late deposit of PF contributions. Both the parties fairly submitted that the facts and circumstances of the case are identical as in ITA No. 107/JP/2018. Our findings and directions contained in ITA No. 107/JP/18 shall therefore apply mutatis mutandis to this matter as well. 12. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
