9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,68,431/- on account of disallowance u/s 14A. As management and decisions about investments always entail certain administrative expenses. The scheme of 14A is very clear that in the case the assessee earned some exempt income and the assessing officer is satisfied that the amount disallowed u/s 14A is not correct, in that scenario the amount disallowed u/s 14A has to be computed by applying Rule 8D. 2. Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 19,19,163/- on account of disallowance u/s 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va). As per the provision of section 2(24)(x) of the Act, employee's contribution to provident fund/other welfare funds constitute income in the hands of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thereby, the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition related to employee's contribution towards PF & ESIC and the addition made by invoking the provision of section 14A of the Act. 5. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Apropos to Ground No, at the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the order of Ld.CIT(A) and submitted that in this case, Ld.CIT(A) has given a finding on fact that during the year under consideration, the assessee did not earn any exempt income therefore, relying upon the judgement of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd.v s CIT-IV 378 ITR 33 [2015]. 7. On the contrary, Ld. Sr. DR opposed the submissions and supported the orders of the AO. 8. We have h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Year- 2015-16] vide order dated 29.07.2022 wherein it has been held as under:- 5. "The judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT in ITA No.117/2015 order dated 25.02.2015, thus clinches the issue in favour of assessee. Thus, the CIT(A) has rightly restricted the disallowance to the extent of the exempt income. Significantly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. M/s. ERA Infrastructure (India) Ltd. in ITA No.204/2022 and CM APPL.31445/2022 judgment and order dated 20th July, 2022 had the occasion to examine the law on applicability of Section 14A having regard to the newly inserted Explanation to Section 14A as codified by Finance Act, 2022. The Hon'ble High Court held that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in the case of PCIT vs Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt.Ltd. in ITA No.983/2018 [Del.] order dated 10.09.2018 held as under:- "In view of the judgement of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax versus AIMIL Limited, (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del.) the issue is covered against the Revenue and, therefore, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The legislative intent was/is to ensure that the amount paid is allowed as an expenditure only when payment is actually made. We do not think that the legislative intent and objective is to treat belated payment of Employee's Provident Fund (EPD) and Employee's State Insurance Scheme (ESI) as deemed income of the employer under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
