9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the interest income is concerned. Accordingly, ground number 1 4 of the appeal is dismissed. Late payment of the employee s contribution to fund - HELD THAT:- It is undisputed that both the above contribution has been deposited before the due date of filing of the return of income. CIT A deleted the disallowance following decision of the honourable jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT versus Ghatge patil transport private limited [ 2014 (10) TMI 402 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and CIT versus Hindustan organic chemicals Ltd [ 2014 (7) TMI 477 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] As the learned CIT A has deleted the disallowance following the decision of the honourable jurisdictional High Court and no contrary decision is pointed out by the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the placement of disposal of funds with a financial institution 4. whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) was right in holding that interest income of the respondent company had a direct nexus with the business and development of export of software to be eligible to be includible in the computation of profits for the purpose of deduction u/s 10 A and 10 AA of the act 5. whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the criminal was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 4,390,680/ on account of late payment of employees contribution to ESIC ignoring the fact that the subsequent decision of the apex court in case of a loam exclusions Ltd (2009) 185 taxman 416 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee stated that it has earned interest income of ₹ 632,849,773/ out of which ₹ 23,29,97,984/ is earned by SEZ unit of the company and therefore assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 10 AA of the act on this sum. Assessee also submitted that identical issue has been decided by the coordinate bench in assessee s own case for assessment year 2008 09, 2009 10, and 2010 11. The learned assessing officer did not accept the contentions of the assessee and denied the deduction u/s 10 AA on interest income. He also treated the interest income of ₹ 632,849,526/ as income from other sources instead of business income. 04. With respect to the employees contribution to employees State insurance scheme, the learned as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal of the learned assessing officer is decided on the merits of the case as per information available on record. 09. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the learned assessing officer. 010. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. Ground number 1 4 is with respect to the allowability of deduction u/s 10 AA of the income tax act on the interest income earned from SEZ Unit. We find that in the present case the assessee is a company, which is eligible for deduction u/s 10 AA of the income tax act. It also received certain interest income on which the deduction was claimed u/s 10 AA of the act. This issue is already decided by the coordinate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
