9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to as 'the Act') for A.Y. 2011-12. Both the matters are heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order. I.T.A No. 619/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2011-12(Revenue's Appeal):- 2. The Revenue has filed the instant appeal with the following grounds: "1. "Whether the Ld. CIT(Appeal) is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition being upward adjustment of Rs. 1,45,92,645/- while determining Arms Lengths Price under the Transfer Pricing Provision." 2. "Whether the ld. CIT(Appeal) is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 15m77,90,288/- made u/s. 14a of the Act to determine book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act."" 3. The first ground relates to the upward adjustment while determining Arms Lengths Price under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eement with the views so expressed by the coordinate bench. Having said that, we may add that while it is true that an appeal against the said order, on the same issue, is admitted by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court but then it is not, and it cannot be, anybody's case that mere admission of appeal can vitiate binding nature of this judicial precedent. In any case, whatever we hold is, and shall always remain, subject to whatever Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has to hold on the issue, and Hon'ble High Court, though in the case of another assessee i.e. Micro Ink (supra) is already seized of the matter. Respectfully following the views expressed by the coordinate bench, we hold that the assessee extending corporate guarantees to its AEs, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or adjudication by Their Lordships. In this view of the factual position, even by deciding this appeal in favour of the assessee, it is nothing more than shifting of judicial forum before which the matter is now to be agitated. We have, therefore, refrained from dealing with elaborate arguments of the parties on merits at this stage. 29. In the result, and subject to the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8. Respectfully following the same, we confirm the findings of the First Appellate Authority." 5. Respectfully following the same we find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the appellate authority so as to warrant interference. In that view of the matter we confirm the same. 6. In the result, Rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r A.Y. 2009-10, the Tribunal has considered this issue at Para 38 while deciding ground no. 7 of Revenue's appeal wherein the Coordinate Bench has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by drawing support from the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Alembic Ltd. in ITA No. 1249 of 2014. 14. As no distinguishing decision has been brought on record in favour of the revenue. Respectfully following the findings of the Coordinate Bench, we decline to interfere. Ground No. 3 is also dismissed. 15. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed." 10. Respectfully relying upon the same we find no reason to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the same is confirmed. Department's appeal i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in (2014) 41 taxmann.com100 (Guj.) holding that employees' contribution to the Employees' Provident Fund (EPF) Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) deposited beyond the due date prescribed u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would not be eligible for deduction u/s. 43B of the Act even after deposited before the due date of filing of tax return. Upon perusal of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench we could understand that the Ld. Tribunal pleased to direct the AO to decide whether there was any delay or not in making such payment by the assessee. It has further observed that any delay deposit of PF/ESIC is to be disallowed in terms of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court judgment as cited above. The relevant portion of the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39;ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (supra), dismiss the grievance of the assessee in principle. We may, however, add that a co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal, in the case of Rajjratna Metal Industries Ltd Vs. ACIT (ITA No.940/Ahd/2015; order dated 22.09.2017), has observed as follows:- "3. Assessee's latter substantive ground challenges correctness of both the lower authorities' action disallowing/adding a sum of Rs. 3,85,810/- u/s. 36(1 )(va) r.w.s. 2(24) of the Act on account late payment of employees' contribution to PF & ESI in question. There is no dispute that hon'ble jurisdictional high court's decision in CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
