9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1772X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment year 2010- 11, has raised following grounds of appeal; "1. Disallowance under section 14A of the Act: Rs. 9.59.194/- 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)1] erred in confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer ('AO') under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') to the extent of Rs. 9,59,194/-. 1.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income - tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the disallowance under section 14A of the Act without establishing any nexus between the administrative expenses and earning of tax free income. 1.3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income - tax (Appeals) erred in making an ad hoc disallowance of 50% of the administrative expenses presuming it to be relatable to earning exempt income. 1.4 On the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that investments made by the appellant were strategic investments made in group companies for holding controlling stake and not to earn divi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der section 56(1) of the Act in the hands of the appellant. 2.6 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in making various observations which are factually incorrect and contrary to the facts available on record which the Appellant craves leave to elucidate at the time of hearing, leading to a perverse finding that Appellant is liable to tax in respect of market value of shares of UPL and UEL received as gift. Taxability under section 2(22)(a) of the Act: 2.7 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) erred in holding that the market value of the shares of UPL Limited ('UPL') and Uniphos Enterprises Limited ('UEL') gifted by Demuric Holdings Pvt Ltd (DHPL) to the appellant ought to be taxed as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(a) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the appellant is not a shareholder of DHPL. 2.8 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not issuing a show cause notice and consequently violating the principles of natural justice by not providing an adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case and in law, it is submitted that taxing the market value of shares of UPL and UEL transferred by way of gift to the appellant amounting to Rs. 1464,54,53,232/- as business income under section 28(iv) or income from other sources under section 56(1) or deemed dividend under section 2(22)(a) of the Act will amount to double taxation since the same amount has held to be taxable in the hands of the shareholders of DHPL as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(a) of the Act in respect of indirect disguised distribution of accumulated profits by the donor companies to their shareholders/members of Shroff family; 3. Non-consideration of claim made in the revised return of income: Rs. 10,17,230/- 3.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in computing income under the head Profits and gains from Business or Profession on the basis of the original return of income instead of the revised return of income wherein interest expenditure amounting to Rs. 10,17,230/- disallowed in the assessment order passed for AY 2009-10 was excluded from the total income for AY 2010-11. 2. The brief facts of the case are that as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowance under section 14A. The ld. Sr. Counsel for the assessee submits that no interest expenditure was incurred by assessee for the purpose of investment in share generating exempt income. No fresh investment was made by the assessee during the relevant financial year. The assessee voluntary disallowed a sum of Rs. 34,215/- pertaining to demat charges. During the assessment proceedings the assessee submitted written note on the expenses attributed for earning exempt income, wherein the assessee has explained the fact. The ld. Sr. Counsel further submits that investments were made in group companies for strategic purpose on which no other expenses or administrative expenses were incurred. In alternative it was submitted that that only those investment which yielded exempt income during the relevant financial year ought to have been considered for the purpose of disallowance under section 14A. The assessing officer erred in including investment in the companies which are liable to pay dividend distribution tax in accordance with section 115O of the Act. The provisions of sub-section (2) and (3) of section14A cannot be imported to clause (f) to the Explanation to section 115JB and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ii). The dispute is with regard to administrative expenses only as prescribed under Rule 8D(2)(iii). We have noted that the assessee has claimed investment in its group companies for strategic purpose on which no other expenses or administrative expenses were allegedly incurred. We have further noted that recently the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income-tax [2018] 91 taxmann.com 154 (SC) held that in cases, where shares are held as stock-in-trade, main purpose is to trade in those shares and earn profits therefrom, in the process, certain dividend is also earned, though incidentally, which is also an income. This triggers applicability of section 14A which is based on theory of apportionment of expenditure between taxable and non-taxable income. Therefore, to that extent, expenditure incurred in acquiring those shares will have to be apportioned. We may also refer that Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in ACIT Vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd.[2017] 82taxman.com 415(Delhi- Trib)(SB) held that computation under Clause-(f) of Explanation-1 to section 115JB(2) of the Act is to be made without resorting to computation as contemplated under section14A r.w. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f UPL and UEL were received by the assessee company in the process of restructuring the group organisation to maximise focus on various business areas and to strengthen the organisation with the growth aspiration and other activities of the group. The promoters of the group have decided to restructure and consolidate and regroup its holding in sister concern in one company. Therefore, the shares of UPL and UEL were received by assessee as a gift in the process of restructuring/reorganising and consolidation of the group. The revenue authorities has no occasion to tax the receipt in the form of share of a listed company received by way of gift as income under the Act, the act of receiving gift of shares did not tantamount to income. The assessee company has received shares of listed company without any consideration in the hands of recipient and therefore, the question of taxing of receipt of share of UPL and UEL as a gift in the hands of the assessee does not arise. The gift of share in the hand of donee is a Capital Receipt and accordingly not taxable Receipt. The transaction of gift of shares cannot be taxed as income as it is not included in the extended meaning of income and ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the year ended 31 March 2010 does not show any investment in DHPL during FY 2009-10 and FY 2008-09. It is submitted that in the Related Party disclosure forming part of the audited accounts of assessee for the year ended 31 March 2010 (page 123 of PB), evidences that DHPL is the holding company of assessee. In view of the above, it is submitted that assessee is not a shareholder of DHPL. Accordingly, the basis of invoking the provisions of section 2(22)( a) of the Act, in respect of gift of shares by DHPL to assessee without consideration, fails. 11. For receipt of share without consideration added to the book profit under section 115JB, it was submitted that the assessee company had complied with the requirements of Parts II and III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act and followed the mandatory accounting standards. Accordingly, no adjustment ought to be made in respect of the market value of shares while computing the book profits. 12. In support of this submission the ld counsel relied on the decision of KDA Enterprises Pvt Ltd (supra) and the decision of Mumbai High Court in CIT Vs Bisleri Sales Ltd [377 ITR 144(Bom)]and in ITO Vs Bhagwan Industries ltd (ITA No. 6665/M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paper-books. The ld. Special Counsel pointed out that in case of donor companeis the amendments were made to validate the gifts of share to assessee. The Memorandum of Associationa and Article of Assocation were amended to enable them to receive and for making gift. All amendemnts were made in Memorandum of Assocaition and Article of Assocaition around the same time when the game of gift of share took place. The ld. Special Ccounsel for revenue also pointed out in case of donor firm some retired partners had signed the transfer agreement while the other partners have not signed the said docuemtns. In case of doner trust only one trustee had signed the agreement and not the other trustee, which is in violation of the law. In supprot of his submission, the ld. Special Counsel for the Revenue relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in case John Tinson & Co. Pvt. Ltd. V/s Surjeet Malhan [(1997) 9 SCC 651]. The ld. special Counsel relied upon the department Paper Book (Vol-1) page no. 197-198 that transfer agreement dated 26.02.2010 shows shares jointly held by two persons i.e. Sandra R. Shroff and Jaideo R. Shroff, however, the agreement is signed by Sandra R. Shroff only. The ld. D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esent case. Further, the orders of Tribunal in Bloom Packaging and Unifos International Ltd. does not decide the isuse on merit. The ld. DR further submtis that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Padma Sundara Rao & Ors V/s State of Tamil Nadu & Ors (2002) 3 SCC 533 held that decision should not be relied upon without considering whether the facts of the case are identical. In case of KDA Enterprises (supra) the issue for consideration was taxability of the gift of right to receive dividend income and therfore, fact are differet and cannot be relied. 18. In support of addition under section 28(iv) the ld. Special Counsel submits that section 28(iv) be read with the provision of section 2(24)(vd) and relied upon the decision of CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears (362 ITR 673) (SC), it was submitted that provision of section section 28(iv) should be tested on touchstone of six conditions viz (i) benefits should arise from the business, (ii) the world business is of wide import and must be construed in a broad rather than a restriced meaning, the entire trnasaction ought to be treated as busienss transaction and relied on decision in Mazgaon Dock Ltd. vs. CIT 34 ITR 368 (SC) (iii) the vlau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifferent fact, it was submitted that in the case of Ultima Search vs ACIT (ITA No. 4646/Mum/2015), the addition made under section 45(4) read with section 48 of the Act was deleted by Tribunal. Further, the addition in respect of 28(iv) in respect of the alleged benefit received by the partners of Ultima in the course of business was also deleted by the Tribunal. For the submission related with the decision of Padma Sundara Rao (supra) it was submitted that observation and finding of the said decision are not only relevant but also binding to some extent. In reply to the decision of KDA Enterprises (supra) that the issue in that case were taxability of gift of the right to receive dividend income and that fact were different and cannot be relied, the ld. Sr. Counsel for assessee replied that the said decision the right to receive dividend, which is undoubtedly a capital asset was transferred. Accordingly, it was held that the receipt of a capital asset is the antithesis of income and is out of the purview of tax under the provisions of the Act. On the reliance of decision in Parimisetti Seetharamamma (supra), the ld. Sr. counsel submits that whatever is received by a person cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plication under Rule 29 of Incometax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. In the application for additional evidence, the Revenue has pleaded that main issue involved in the appeal involve the receipt of share of two companies by way of gift from sixteen different entities of the group. The two companies, whose shares were received in gift, are listed companies. The market value of the gifted share is Rs. 1464,54,53,232/-, which has been accounted for by the recipient in its books of account at a nominal value of Rs. 100/-. The assessee has claimed the gift of share as exempt being capital receipt and rational for this transaction is claimed to be the process of restructuring of the group to maximise focus in various business area. The Revenue has treated the transaction as colourable devise. It is further pleaded in the application that subsequent to the assessment order passed under section 143(3) on 30.03.2013. A search under section 132 was conducted on United Phosphorus Group of Companies on 19.03.2014. After search in the appraisal report, the DDIT (Inv) made certain reference to a Singapore based company, M/s Timberlane Pte. Ltd., this came to light that during the course of search t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dence may be admitted by Tribunal and further allow two months further time in order to enable the Revenue to collect evidence from Bank at Singapore/India, share purchase agreement and then decide the appeal on merit. The ld. Special Counsel for the Revenue argued on similar line as per the contention of his application and further relied upon the decision of (i) New Delhi Television Ltd. (83 Taxmann.com 282), (ii) Khairunnissa Ebrahim (201 ITR 903),(iii)Jansampark Advertising (375 ITR 373) (Del HC),(iv) Maruti Udyog (161 CTR 81) (Del HC) and (v) Union of India vs Ibrahim Uddin (2012) 8 SCC 148. 26. On the other hand the ld. Sr. Counsel for the assessee objected for the admission of the additional evidence, it was submitted that it is not open to the Revenue to make an application for admission of additional evidence. The scope of Rule 29 postulates that additional evidence can be admitted under two circumstances. The first circumstances is when the party seeking to adduce additional evidence asserts and establishes that the income tax authorities have decided the case without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to adduce evidence. Therefore, such an application can onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or deciding the issue before this Tribunal. 27. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the various documents sought to be relied as additional evidence and the decisions relied by the ld. representatives. We have also deliberated on the judicial pronouncement cited the ld. Special Counsel for the revenue and the ld Senior Counsel for the assessee during the course of hearing before us. For appreciation of Rule 29 we may refer the provision thereof, which is as under: "29. Production of additional evidence before the Tribunal.- The parties to the appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence either oral or documentary before the Tribunal, but if the Tribunal requires any documents to be produced or any witness to be examined or any affidavit to be filed to enable it to pass orders or for any other substantial cause, or, if the income-tax authorities have decided the case without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to adduce evidence either on points specified by them, or not specified by them, the Tribunal, for reasons to be recorded, may allow such document to be produced or witness to be examined or affidavit to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arty but within the discretion of the Court which is to be exercised judiciously...... Secondly, even if it be a question of law, if answer is evident or is settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court, such question need not be referred to the Court for its opinion. There is no dispute about the fact that litigant cannot claim as a matter of right to lead additional evidence before appellate authority and the power of the Tribunal in the matter of taking additional evidence on record is circumscribed by the rule. Exercise of such power to permit a party to produce additional evidence before the Tribunal is absolutely within the discretion of the Tribunal and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. There is statutory mandate that parties are not entitled to produce additional evidence, oral or documentary, before the Tribunal. The discretion of the Tribunal to take the additional evidence required to be produced by the parties on record is circumscribed by the condition that if the Tribunal requires said evidence to be produced before it to enable it to pass orders or for any substantial cause." 31. The case law relied by ld DR for the revenue are not directly on the admission of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mining the information submitted before them by the assessee. In this context, it was held by the High Court that the CIT (A) and Tribunal ought to have made further enquiry into the transaction entered into by the assessee if deemed necessary. Accordingly, the High Court remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to examine the material submitted by the assessee and decide the matter in light of the said material. Accordingly, it was not a case of admission of any additional evidence but it was restored back directing an enquiry to be made on the material that was already before the lower authorities. The decision in Maruti Udyog Vs ITAT (supra) deals with admission of additional ground and not additional evidence. The two are governed by different independent principles and accordingly, the aforesaid decision has no applicability in the present case. 33. In Union of India Vs Ibrahim Uddin (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para 49 of the judgement that the true test, in deciding application is, whether the appellate court is able to pronounce judgement on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced. Further i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is dismissed 36. Now we shall proceed to discuss Ground No.2 relates to validity of taxability of gifted shares to Assessee Company, under various sections of Income-tax Act. We have considered the rival submissions of the ld Counsels of the parties. We have also deliberated on various judicial pronouncement referred by the lower authorities in their orders as well as various decisions cited and relied by the parties during the course of hearing in context of factual matrix of the case. 37. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order treated the transfer of share as taxable receipt holding that assessee is a beneficiary in the ordinary course of its business and the receipt of share is taxable under section 28(iv). The Assessing Officer alternatively treated the market value of shares received by assessee without consideration as income from other sources under section 56(1). The ld. CIT(A) besides confirming the addition under section 28(iv) and 56(1), held that transaction of transfer of share to assessee is covered within the purview of section 2(22)(a), holding it that distribution of share by DHPL of accumulated substantial capital asset to the assessee, who is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Coordinate bench of Tribunal in DCIT Vs KDA Enterprises (supra) held section 2(24) defines 'income'. The definition of 'income' provided in section 2(24) although an inclusive definition, but it specifically provides the income which are intended to be taxed under the provisions of the Act. Even the income in the nature of capital gains as per section 45, and gifts received as per section 56(2)(v), (vi), (vii) etc. are included in the definition of income. Thus under the Act only the receipts which are in the nature of 'income' are subjected to tax. Any other receipts which are not in the nature of 'income' are not liable to tax under the provisions of the Act. Section 5 provides for scope of total income chargeable to tax in India on the basis of receipt, accrual and deemed to be received and accrued in India. In view of above, the charging section of the Act specifically provides for taxation of 'income' of an assessee. For a receipt to be taxable under the provisions of the Act it must necessarily be in the nature of an income or its taxability should have been specifically provided by the statute. Under the Act, what is subjected to tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny part of asset of the company 42. In our view, in order to fall within clause (a) of section 2(22), two conditions must be satisfied; (i) it must be a distribution of accumulated profits, whether capitalized or not; and (ii) it must be such as entails the release of all or any of assets of the company. The two conditions are manifestly cumulative and it is only if both conditions are satisfied, a distribution can be said to be dividend within the meaning of the section. We have noted that the assessee is not a shareholder of DHPL and therefore, the taxing of receipt of gift from DHPL is not sustainable. Even while making submission ld. counsel for assessee invited our attention to the investment schedule of assessee-company as on 31.03.2008 which shows that assessee is not a shareholder of DHPL (Page No. 134 of PB). In the related party disclosure as well, which is forming part of audited account of assessee for the year ended on 31.03.2010 shows that DHPL is the holding company of assessee (Page No. 132 of PB). Therefore, invoking the provision of section 2(22) (a) in respect of gift of share by DHPL to NCPL without consideration is unsustainable. 43. So far as the taxability ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on which is less than market value, cannot be brought to tax as a benefit or perquisite under section 28(iv). 46. In DCIT Vs Manish M Chheda (29SOT 138 Mum) it was held "17.----- one of the condition necessary for applicability of s. 28(iv) is the benefit or perquisite sought to be taxed must be arising in the course of business carried on. In the case of Smt. Chetanaben B. Sheth (Minor) (supra), Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held that amount received by an assessee partner of a firm towards valuation of goodwill and assets of a firm at the time of retirement from the firm does not attract provisions of s. 28(iv) of the Act, since, the same cannot be said to be a perquisite arising from the business and that even otherwise it would not partake the character of income. Besides the above, we are of the view that the increase in capital of partner as a result of revaluation of assets of the firm has no nexus with the business of the firm and, therefore, cannot be brought within the ambit of s. 28(iv) of the Act. We, therefore, hold that provisions of s. 28(iv) cannot be applied to bring the sum in question to tax in the hands of the partners of the firm." 47. With the aforesaid d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re or processing of goods or in mining or in the generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power, item (B) shall have effect as if for the words "not less than fifty per cent", the words "not less than forty per cent" had been substituted; 'Section'- 56. Income from other sources - (1) Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from the total income under this Act shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Income from other sources", if it is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in section 14, items A to E. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income- tax under the head "Income from other sources", namely :- ** ** ** "(viia) where a firm or a company not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons, on or after the 1st day of June, 2010, any property, being shares of a company not being a company in which the public are substantially interested,- (i) without consideration, the aggregate fair market value of which exceeds fifty thou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e consideration by any person subject to certain exclusions. 50. As we have seen that corresponding amendments were made to the definition of income in section 2(24) to cover the aforesaid receipts as income i.e. insertion of clauses (xiii), (xiv), (xv), (xvi), (xvii) and (xviia) in section 2(24) of the Act. In view of the above, history, the intention of the legislature has been to cover a particular transaction in the tax net; the law has been suitably amended. The fact that the gift of shares of a company in which the public is substantially interested between two companies was not covered under the provisions of section 56 until the introduction of subsection (2)(x), the said transaction ought not to be taxed under section 56 of the Act. We may also note that in Explanatory Notes to the provisions of Finance Act 2010 issued by CBDT in its Circular No. 1/2011 dated 06.04.2011, explained the applicability and the intention of the legislation of introducing section 56(2) (viia) as under ; "13.2. These are anti - abuse provisions which are applicable only if an individual or an HUF is the recipient. Therefore, transfer of shares of a company to a firm or a company, instead of an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia) of the Act, only the transfer of shares of an unlisted company without consideration or for inadequate consideration is deemed to be income chargeable to tax and not the transfer of shares of listed company. In the present case the assessee has received gift of shares of UPL and UEL being listed Companies, and therefore, the same cannot be treated as income chargeable to tax. In the present case the shares were gifted even prior to the aforesaid proposal made vide the Finance Bill, 2010 applicable w.e.f 01.06.2010, therefore, no addition can be made in the assessment year 2010- 11, relevant to F.Y.2009-10 under consideration. 53. At the cost of repetition, we observe that there is no question of taxing a receipt in the form of shares of a listed company received by way of a gift under the Act since the said receipt does not tantamount to income as the term is defined. Further, there was also no provision under the Act at the relevant time for taxing the transfer of shares of a listed Company received without any consideration in the hands of the recipient and, accordingly, the question of taxing the gift of shares of UPL and UEL as income in the hands of the Company does not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ealt with a family dispute and an arrangement to resolve such dispute. The transfer of property was done pursuant to a family arrangement. This decision does not lay down the proposition that a Company cannot make a gift. They only state that a company cannot be part of a family arrangement. Accordingly, the facts of the aforesaid case are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, Ground No.2 of the appeal is allowed. 57. Ground No 3 relates to deduction in respect of interest expenditure amounting to Rs. 10,17,230/-. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that initially the assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2010-11 on 22nd September 2010 declaring total income at Rs. 1,64,58,763/-under normal provisions and book profit under section 115 JB at Rs. 2,09,66,801//. Subsequently, a revised return of income was filed on 28/03/2012 declaring total income of Rs. 1,54,41,530/- declaring same book profit after setting off of brought forward losses of Rs. 44,18,221/-. In the revised return interest of Rs. 10,17,230/- was disallowed in the assessment year 2009-10 has been excluded as it amounts to double taxation of the same amount in AY2009-10 and 2010- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') as per Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 amounting to Rs. 14,84,896/-. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the AO in the following respects while computing the average value of investments for the purpose of computing the disallowance under section 14A as per rule 8D(2)(ii)of the Income Tax Rules: a) In not excluding the investments made in group companies for holding controlling stake which are strategic in nature and does not require day-today monitoring by the appellant; b) In not appreciating that only the investments which have yielded exempt income ought to be included; c) In not excluding investments which are capable of yielding taxable income. 3. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal and in the alternative, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the fact that investments in domestic companies/ mutual funds ought not to be included for the purpose of computing disallowance under section 14A of the Act since dividend from domestic companies/ mutual funds is not exempt from tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ates to disallowance under section 14A. We have noted that these identical to the grounds of appeal in appeal for assessment year 2010-11, which we have restored to the file of assessing officer for deciding afresh, therefore, considering the principles of consistency these grounds of appeals are also restored to the file of assessing officer with similar direction. In the result all the grounds of appeal in these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose. 64. Ground No. 4 relates to disallowance of contribution of Employees Provident Funds (EPF). The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the assessee had deposited the contribution of EPF after its due date; however, it was paid before the due date of filing the return of income. Therefore, no disallowance is justified in such circumstances. 65. On the other hand the ld. Special Counsel relied on the order of authorities below. 66. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have seen the orders of the authorities below. We have noted that during the assessment proceeding the assessee filed revised computation of income vide its application dated 27.07.2011 and claimed deduction of Rs. 4820/- on account con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
