9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [ 2016 (3) TMI 755 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] had deleted the disallowance of interest made under second limb of rule 8D (2) of the rules. We do not find any infirmity in the said action of the ld. CIT(A). Disallowance u/s.36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) - delayed payment of provident fund and ESI dues beyond the due dates specified under the respective acts - HELD THAT:- We find that the date of remittance of PF and ESI dues for each month is duly tabulated in pages 8 9 of the order of CIT(A) and from which it is seen that the entire dues were duly remitted by the assessee on or before the due date of filing of return of income and hence, by respectfully following the decision of Hon ble Juris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.4262/Mum/2018 for A.Y.2014-15 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai in appeal No.CIT(A)-12/ITO-6(3)(4)/B2-653/16-17 dated 05/04/2018 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 21/12/2016 by the ld. ITO-6(3)(4), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). 2. The first issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made u/s.14A of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The brief facts of this issue are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing all forms of drugs and molecu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... records on the decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Power and Utilities Ltd., reported in 313 ITR 340 and in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., reported in 67 Taxman.com 41 had deleted the disallowance of interest made under second limb of rule 8D (2) of the rules. We do not find any infirmity in the said action of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the ground No.1 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 6. The ground No.2 raised by the revenue is with regard to disallowance made u/s.36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act in respect of delayed payment of provident fund and ESI dues beyond the due dates specified under the respective acts. 6.1. We have heard riva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubjected to travel. However, the ld. AO held that the assessee could not discharge its onus to substantiate that the said travel expenses were incurred for the purpose of business of the assessee, for which purpose he made an ad hoc disallowance at 5% in the sum of ₹ 26,90,802/-. We find that the assessee had pleaded before the ld. CIT(A) that it had to employed 400 medical representatives who travel all over the country and their expenditure of travelling together with salary are to be borne by the assessee. The assessee had also filed turnover chart together with the list of travelling expenses incurred from A.Yrs 2009-10 to A.Yrs 2014-15 wherein it could be seen that the travelling expenses constituted on an average 6.43% of the to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ground that the appellant could not discharge the onus that lay on it to support and substantiate its claim for the said expenses by producing relevant supporting documentary evidence and therefore, inflation of the said expenses and personal use cannot be ruled out. On the other hand, the appellant contended that three box files containing all the details of the Travelling Conveyance expenses along with all the documentary evidences including bills and vouchers for a period of four months were furnished to the AO during the assessment proceedings vide letter dated 04.11.2016. It was stated that the vouchers for the balance eight months were also produced for verification. On perusal of the copy of the letter dated 04.11.2016 submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is seen that disallowance has been made at 20% on ad-hoc basis without bringing out anything on record in the assessment order. Perusal of the tax audit report also shows that no expenditure is quantified as cash expenditure. Thus, it is held that no disallowance can be made on pure estimation without any basis of documentary proof on mere surmises and presumptions. Thus, Ground of appeal No. 4 is allowed. 26. The fact of the case for the present assessment year are identical to the facts of the case for the earlier AY 2012-13 in respect of which the CIT(A) deleted the ad-hoc disallowance as mentioned above. Hence, having regard to the same and the discussion made regarding the facts of the case in the preceding paragrap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
