9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 80JJA of the Act. Claim of depreciation on windmill - HELD THAT:- Tribunal had also adjudicated the aforesaid issue of depreciation on windmill vide para 14 of the order and has held the assessee to be entitled to claim the aforesaid depreciation. Following the same parity of reasoning, we uphold the order of CIT(A) in this regard and dismiss the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue. Disallowance made on account of employees contribution to Provident Fund, ESIC and Maharashtra Labour Welfare Fund - HELD THAT:- As decided in in CIT Vs. Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd. [2014 (10) TMI 402 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] to hold that in case the payments were made before due date of filing the return of income, then no disallowance is to be made und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e CIT(A) has erred in failing to appreciate the so called purchase of windmills by the assessee from its sister concern NMCOML, a loss making company was shown transaction carried out in order to merely avail the benefit of depreciation. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition due to disallowance on account of employees contribution to Provident Fund (PF), Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) and Maharashtra Labour Welfare Fund and ignoring the fact that employee's contribution to such welfare funds is governed by the Provisions of Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act as clarified by Board's Circular No. 22 of 2015 dated 17.12.2015 and hence the same has been rightly disal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC after due date specified under the respective Acts and certain other expenses. 6. The CIT(A) allowed the claims of assessee in turn, relying on similar issue being decided by the CIT(A) in assessment year 2011-12. The year under appeal is assessment year 2012-13. 7. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 8. We find that the Tribunal in assessee s own case in assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 has decided similar issue. The first issue decided by the Tribunal vide para 11 is with regard to the claim of deduction under section 80JJA of the Act, which was allowed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal in turn, relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
