9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a series of decisions of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in favour of the assessee and further Hon ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. [ 2017 (7) TMI 1087 - SC ORDER ] has dismissed the SLP filed by the Department this issue is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. - SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM Assessee by: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.) Revenue by: Shri K.C. Gupta (JCIT) ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.02.2019 of ld. CIT(A), Jaipur for the assessment order 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following ground:- 1. on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration and therefore, the payment was made much before the due date of filing of return of income U/s 139(1) of the Act. At the outset, we note that this issue is covered by a series of decisions of the Hon ble jurisdiction High Court as well as this Tribunal. This Tribunal in case of M/s K.S. Automobiles Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No. 1184/JP/2018 and 1185/JP/2018 dated 08.03.2019 has considered an identical issue in para 3 as under:- 3. We have heard the ld. AR as well as ld. DR and considered the relevant material on record. At the outset, we note that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the various decisions of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court including the decision in case of CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner Jaipur 99 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... siness and expenditure of this nature being for business expediency is certainly allowable deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. In our view any normal expenditure for the welfare and benefit of the employees is allowable expenditure under section 37(1), the Tribunal has come to a finding of fact that it was a legal obligation of the respondent-assessee towards contribution of the said amount to the State Renewal Fund and there being a legal obligation as well in our view the Tribunal has come to a correct conclusion. In view of the above, question No. 1 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. 6. With regard to issue No. 2 and 3 the controversy is pending before the Supreme Court in C.I.T., Jaipur Vs/ Ms State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee and further Hon ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. 250 taxmann 16 has dismissed the SLP filed by the Department this issue is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Hence, disallowances/additions made by the AO on account of employees contribution to PF ESI are deleted. There is no dispute the appeal of the assessee filed the levy of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) when nobody has attended the proceeding despite 12 opportunities were given by the ld. CIT(A). We further, note that out of these 12 opportunities the date of hearing upto 1212.04.2018 were prior to the disposal of the quantum appeal of the assessee by this Tribunal, therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
