9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Income Tax Act 1961(In short the 'Act') dated 25.02.2020 & 19.06.2019 framed by ACIT,CPC, Bangalore. The Assessee namely Natraj Dal Mill has raised following grounds of appeal in ITANo. 153/Ind/2021: 1. On the facts and circumstance of the case, the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi erred in sustaining disallowance of employee's contribution to PF and ESI of Rs. 1,14,038/- and Rs. 12,615/- respectively paid late by the appellant which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 2. Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts of the case in proper perspective. 3. The appellant prays for relief. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any grounds of appeal as and when the necessity or occasion arises. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ire payment of the impugned sum made by the appellant was also eligible for deduction under s.37(1) of the Act. That, the appellant further craves leave to add, alter or amend the foregoing ground of appeal as and when considered necessary 2. As the issues raised in these appeals are common relate to different assesse's at the request of all the parties, both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The common grievance relates to disallowance of employees contribution to PF & ESIC and for adjudicating this issue we take the facts in case of Natraj Dal Mill in ITANo.153/Ind/2021 and our decision shall apply mutatis mutandis to the appeal of another assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [2017] 393 ITR 386(Patna) c. Pr. CIT vs. Rajasthan State Beverage Corpn. Ltd. (20017) 250 Taxman 32 (Rajasthan) d. Pr. CIT vs. Hind Filter Ltd. [2018] 90 taxmann.com 51(Bombay) 7. Per contra ld. DR submitted that the issue is debatable and some of the Hon'ble High Courts have also decided against the assessee on this particular issue, but agreed that no decisions on this issue have been given by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. Reliance placed on following decisions: 1.Pr. CIT vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd. (2020) 115 Taxmann.com 340 (Gujarat) b. CIT vs. Merchem ltd. [2015} 378 ITR 443 (Kerala) c. CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2015) 232 Taxman 241(Kerala) 8. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowance relying on various judgments observing as follows: 25. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the Authorities below. In the light of judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case cited (supra), wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under: "3. However, taking into consideration, the judgement of this court in the case of assessee itself in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.150/2016 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. Jaipur-2 v. M/s. Rajasthan State Beverages Corpn. Ltd.) decided on 4.8.2016 wherein Division Bench observed as under: "5. So far as the question relating to privilege fees amounting to Rs, 26.00 Crores in the instant year as well as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wance observing as ITA Nos.561 & 562/Ind/2018 Parag Fans Cooling System Pvt. Ltd follows:- Ground No.5:- Through this ground of appeal the appellant has challenged the addition of Rs. 4,17,302/- on account or disallowance of EPF and ESIC late deposit. The appellant made the above payments before filing of return of income. The above expenditure is allowable expenditure in view of Hon'ble ITAT, lndore's decision in the case of Asst. CIT v .Indira Export Pvt Ltd. (201 3) 21 ITJ 372 (Trib. - Indore)- Employees contribution to provident Fund- Employees contribution to Provident Fund -Employees contribution to Provident Fund - Deletion of second proviso to section 43B- HELD-In view of CIT v Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2010) 14 ITJ 133(SC), d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
