9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1955X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P.F account - CIT(A) submitted that employees contribution to PF account was deposited after the due date but before furnishing the income tax return as specified u/s. 139 - CIT-A allowed the claim - HELD THAT:- There is no distinction between employees' and employer contribution to PF, and if the total contribution is deposited on or before the due date of furnishing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, then no disallowance can be made towards employees' contribution to provident fund. Hence, we are inclined not to interfere in the order of ld. CIT-A. Hence the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. - ITA No. 318/Kol/2015 - - - Dated:- 1-9-2017 - SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, AC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 33,308 5,095 Making shade 7,897 125 8,59,449 9,71,761 During the course of assessment pro ceedings, Assessing Officer observed that these expenses are capital in nature and accordingly sought clarification from the assessee. But no details were submitted by the assessee to the AO suggesting that there has been extension in planting. Therefore, the same was disallowed and added to the total income of assessee. 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the expense were incurred in relation to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We find that there was no expansion in the area of plantation therefore the principle laid down by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tasah Tea Company Ltd. reported in 262 ITR 380 (Cal) is squarely applicable in this case. The relevant extract is reproduced below:- It is not an investment of fresh capital unless it is utilized for the purpose of expanding the plantation. Respectfully following the same, we find no reason to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A). We uphold the same. Hence, this ground of Revenue is dismissed. 7. Next issue raised by Revenue in this appeal is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for ₹12,09,355/- on account of delayed deposited in employees P.F a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecovery of member share of contribution and as per the scheme, the employer can recover the employees' share from the wages paid to the employee. Therefore, as per the PF Act and scheme of contributions, the contributions means and include both employees' and employer's share. Similarly, section 2(c) of the Provident Fund Act defines the contribution to mean a contribution payable in respect of a member under the scheme or the contribution payable in respect of an employee to whom the scheme applies. There is a prescribed mode of payment of contributions under the PF Act. Under the said Act, the employer shall contribute both employees and employer share along with administrative charges before the due date specified under the P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd if such contribution is made on or before the due date of furnishing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, then deduction is to be allowed under the provisions of section 43B of the Act. 10.2 The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, in the case of Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2014] 366 ITR 408/222 Taxman 170 (Mag.)/43 taxmann.com 33 took the view that the word contribution occurring in section 43B of the Act would include employees' contribution to PF in the light of the definition of the word contribution as per the provisions of section 2(c) of the PF Act. As per the said section, contribution would mean both employer's contribution and employees' contribution. Accordingly, it was held that the provisions of sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respective Act, but before filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act cannot be disallowed u/s 43B of the Act and or u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. 10.3 Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also following the judicial precedents as discussed above, we are of the view that there is no distinction between employees' and employer contribution to PF, and if the total contribution is deposited on or before the due date of furnishing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, then no disallowance can be made towards employees' contribution to provident fund. Hence, we are inclined not to interfere in the order of ld. CIT-A. Hence the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 11. In the result, Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
