9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oyees State Insurance Act. Therefore, these Acts permit the employer to make the deposit with some delays, subject to the aforesaid consequences. Insofar as the Income Tax Act is concerned, the assessee can get the benefit if the actual payment is made before the return is filed, as per the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Vinay Cement (supra). We find that on the issue in dispute the CIT(A) has followed the finding of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, which is binding on the Tribunal or the CIT(A) functioning under the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. In view of the above, we do not find any error in the order of the CIT(A) and accordingly, we uphold the same. Ground No. 1 of the appeal of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the business of service sector (Others) credit rating services. The e-return of income was filed on 29/08/2013 declaring loss of ₹ 90,26,697/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. Notice u/s 143(2) dated 3/9/2014 was issued and another notice u/s 142(1) dated 29/6/2015 along with questionnaire was issued. In response to the notices, Vice President (Finance) Manager (Accounts) of the assessee company attended the proceedings from time to time are filed the necessary details which were examined by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer made disallowance u/s 2(24) (x) read with Section 36(1) (v) amounting to ₹ 42,85,635/- and also made disallowance of income in respect of TDS difference reported in ITR and AS 26 amounti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the appellant denies its liability to be assessed at an income of (-) ₹ 10,36,510/- and accordingly denies its liability to pay tax, surcharge, cess and interest demanded thereon. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of, the case, Ld. A.O. has erred in law and on facts in framing impugned assessment order without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without serving the mandatory notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. (a) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. A.O. has erred in law and on facts in disallowing employees contribution towards provident fund (PF) amounting to ₹ 42,35,589/- and employees contribution towar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 34,99,178/- while computing the total income under the head ' Profits from Business or Profession', as can be seen from computation of income filed during assessment proceedings. (C) That in any case and in any view of the matter, Ld. A.O has erred in law and on facts in disregarding the Tax Audit Report and computation of income of the assessee company filed before the assessing officer. (d) That in any case and in any view of the matter, Ld. A.O has erred in law and on facts by disregarding the submissions dated 11.01.2016 filed during the assessment proceedings and also reproduced by the assessing officer vide para 5 on page 4 of his order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9.9. I have carefully considered the observations of the Assessing Officer and submissions of the Appellant. From the computation of income, it is seen that Appellant has disallowed the Provision for Leave Encashment of ₹ 20,63,868/- and has claimed the amount of Leave Encashment of ₹ 20,22,855/- on actual payment basis. From the ledger of Provision for Leave Encashment for the period 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013, it is also seen that Appellant had written back the liability no longer required on account of Leave Encashment of ₹ 17,19,749/-. . 9.10 Appellant has stated that this amount was not claimed as expenditure during A.Y. 2012-13 and, therefore, it is not taxable. From the perusal of comput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
