9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [ 2014 (1) TMI 502 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] , we uphold the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of belated payment of employees contribution towards Provident Fund and dismiss Ground of assessee s appeal. Addition of short receipts allegedly declared by the assessee as compared to the receipts reflected in 26AS - HELD THAT:- As assessee has submitted that the assessee is now in a position to produce the relevant documentary evidence to establish that the amounts in question represented advances on which taxes were deducted by the concerned parties and the same did not constitute the income of the assessee chargeable to tax in the year under consideration. He has urged that one opportunity may be given to the assessee to do so by sending the matter back to the Assessing Officer. Since the learned DR has not raised any objection in this regard, we restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for giving the assessee one more opportunity to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee being ITA Nos.394/SRT/2018 and 2373/Ahd/2018 and two filed by the Revenue being ITA Nos. 1428 2234/Ahd/2018, are cross-appeals which are directed against two separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Vadodara ( CIT(A) in short) dated 08.03.2018 and 13.08.2018 for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common, the same have been heard together and are being disposed of by a single consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. First, we shall take up the assessee s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 being ITA No.394/SRT/2018 which is directed against the order of the learned CIT(A)-1, Vadodara dated 08.03.2018. 3. Ground Nos. 1 2 raised by the assessee in this appeal for AY 2013-14 involve a common issue relating to the addition of Rs.12,52,745/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) by restricting the claim of the assessee for depreciation on electrical fittings to 10% instead of 15%. 4. The assessee, in the present case, is a company which is engaged in the business of Port and Terminal Operations. The return of income for the year under consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to the disallowance of Rs.1,31,882/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) on account of belated payment of employees contribution towards Provident Fund, the learned representatives of both the sides have agreed that this issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). Respectfully following the said judgment of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court, we uphold the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of belated payment of employees contribution towards Provident Fund and dismiss Ground No.3 of assessee s appeal for AY 2013-14. 7. The issue involved in Ground No.4 of the assessee s appeal relates to the addition of Rs.15,14,241/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) on account of short receipts allegedly declared by the assessee as compared to the receipts reflected in 26AS. 8. Contractual receipts, rent and professional fees aggregating to Rs.15,14,241/- as reflected in 26AS were not disclosed by the assessee in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, therefore, disallowed the claim of the assessee for set off of brought forward business loss against book profit. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee on this issue vide paragraph Nos. 8.2 and 8.2.1 of his impugned order which read as under:- 8.2. I have carefully considered the facts on record and submissions of the Ld. AR. Undisputedly, the appellant company has gone into restructuring and in view of the provisions of Section 100 to 104 of Companies Act, 1956, the capital reduction arrangement was made. This capital reduction arrangement was duly approved by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court vide order dated 08.10.2010. It is claimed that in the process of restructuring, due to capital reduction arrangement, the business losses and unabsorbed depreciation were adjusted against the share capital and reserves and surplus in order to bring a better net worth of the company. The Ld. AR has furnished details of unabsorbed business loss, and depreciation from AY 2002-03 to AY 2010-11 totaling to Rs.58,84,54,570/-. The Ld. AR has heavily submitted that even after restructuring of the business and reduction of capital after adjusting the brough ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t forward business loss claimed by the appellant. Thus, appellant succeeds on this account. 12. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. It is observed that this issue involved in the Revenue s appeal is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Surat Textile Mills Ltd, (2017) 79 taxmann.com 209, wherein it was held as under:- Section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Minimum alternate tax - Payment of tax (Unabsorbed depreciation) - Assessment year 2012-13 - Assessee-company was declared as sick industry - Consequently, as per rehabilitation scheme, all credit amounts of capital nature, like, equity share capital account, secured loan accounts etc. were transferred to credit of rehabilitation account and said credit was, then, used to adjust debit balance of profit and loss account - On assessee's net worth became positive, assessee deducted unabsorbed deprecation from book profits to calculate minimum alternate tax - Assessing Officer disallowed said deduction - Whether restructuring credits brought into profit loss account agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r AY 2014-15 involve a common issue relating to the deletion by the learned CIT(A) of the addition of Rs.31,26,316/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of prior period expenses while computing book profit under Section 115JB of the Act. 16. We have heard the arguments of both the sides on this issue and also perused the relevant material available on record. As agreed by the learned representatives of both the sides, this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee inter alia by the decision of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v . GMR Industries Ltd., [2020] 425 ITR 504, wherein it was held that prior period expenses charged to profit and loss account cannot be deducted from the profit of the year for the purpose of computing book profit under Section 115JB of the Act as the same does not fall within the purview of Section 115JB of the Act. To the similar effect is the decision of Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shivshahi Punarvasan Prakalp Ltd. Vs. ITO, (2012) 135 ITD 51 (Mumbai), wherein it was held that there is no provision for any adjustment on account of prior period expenses in Explanation-1 to Section 115JB(2) of the Act and, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
