Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2020 (6) TMI 632

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er referred as to 'the Act') for Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. First ground relates to confirmation of disallowance of employees contribution to PF and ESI for Rs. 19,05,301/- made by the AO. 3. Heard the parties and perused the records. The Learned AO made the addition on account of disallowance of employees' contribution to PF and ESIC for violation of the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. It is the case of the assessee that such disallowances are not correct. Out of all payments of employees' contribution to PF and ESIC, there are only four instances where there was actual delay from the due date prescribed by the Act. A chart containing such details of payments has also been filed by the assessee before us from .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to Rs. 3,53,108/- has also not been taken into consideration by the Learned CIT(A) by not adhering to the RBI Master Circular No. 15/2014-15 dated 01.07.2014permitting 180 days to allot equity shares/preference shares from the date of receipt has also been challenged before us. 5. The case of the appellant is this that the company has infused share application money in its AE, Astral Pipes Ltd. being a joint venture entity where the appellant company owns only 37.5% equity stake. It is the case of the assessee that the joint venture partners are required to contribute their respective share of application money and unless the said partners make contribution equivalents to their respective stakes,the joint venture company cannot proceed to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the matter of PCIT vs. M/s. Sterling Oil Resources Ltd.ITA No. 341 of 2017order dated 1st July, 2019. 6. However, an alternative argument has also been advanced by the Ld. AR to this effect that in the event the Tribunal finds it debt but no equity, adjustment could be confined only to 80 days in view of the particular fact the share was allotted after 260 days and not within 180 days being the permissible limit as per the RBI Master Circular No. 15/2014-15 dated 01.07.2014. In this regard, he also relied upon the judgment passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in matter for Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. for A.Y. 2012-13 dated 23.03.2018. A copy whereof has also been handed over to us. 7. The Ld. DR relied upon the orde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... period of time before the shares were allotted. The Assessing Officer, therefore, treated this transaction as one of loans. It was under similar circumstances that this Court dismissed Revenue's Income Tax Appeal No.1248/2016 vide order dated 28th January 2019 making following observations: "2. The respondent- assessee is a Company registered under the Companies Act. For the Assessment Year 2009-10, the assessee was subjected to transfer pricing regime. Question no.1 arises out of the action of the Revenue to tax notional interest in the hands of the assessee through transfer pricing. The facts are that, during the period relevant to the assessment year in question, the assessee had subscribed to redeemable preferential shares of its .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , the assessee is in appeal. Admission of the said appeal, therefore, would not persuade us to admit the Revenue's appeal also. In the result, income tax appeal is dismissed." Respectfully relying upon the ratio laid down by the said judgment we are agreed to the proposition. 9. However, so far as the delay of 80 days is concerned we have considered the submission made by the AR in charging interest only on the period of delay. The judgment cited by the Ld. AR in the case of Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. for A.Y. 2012-13 dated 23.03.2018 has also been considered by us. The relevant portion whereof is as follows:- "17.8 I have carefully considered the facts of the case and submissions made as well as chain of decisions relied upon by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates