9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1685X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no dispute that if the employees contribution to PF ESI is paid on or before due date u/s. 139(1) of the Act, then there can be no disallowance u/s. 43B of the Act and it was so held in the case of CIT v. Sabari Industries [ 2007 (7) TMI 169 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] DR, however, placed reliance on a contrary decision rendered in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [ 2014 (1) TMI 502 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] The decision of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka which is the jurisdictional High Court is to be followed by the Tribunal. Consequently, we find no merit in the relevant ground No.1 of appeal of the revenue. Excess Deduction u/s. 80JJAA - AO referred to the provisions of the section 80JJAA and observed that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers on identical issue, the Tribunal has remanded to the AO for fresh consideration of the issue, we deem it fit to restore this issue to the AO for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Consequently, Gr.No.2 is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar). 3. The ld. DR, however, placed reliance on a contrary decision rendered by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, 366 ITR 170 (Guj). 4. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka which is the jurisdictional High Court is to be followed by the Tribunal. Consequently, we find no merit in the relevant ground No.1 of appeal of the revenue. 5. As far as ground No. 2 is concerned, it pertains to deduction u/s. 80JJAA of the Act which has been wrongly referred to as 115JJAA of the Act in ground No.2 raised by the revenue. As far as this ground is concerned, the facts are that the assessee company had claimed deduction at 30% u/s.80JJAA amounting to Rs.8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... workmen employed by the assessee in the previous year for 3 assessment years including the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such employment is provided". The words used are an amount equivalent to 30% of the wages paid in the previous year which can be claimed for 3 years including the first previous year. Further it was submitted that there was no weighted deduction and the claim was made rightly u/s 80JJAA. Reliance was placed on the order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the AY 2004-05 wherein the orders of Tribunal in assessee's own case for AY 2010-11 and 2007-08 to 2009-10 was followed. 7. The CIT(Appeals) allowed the appeal of assessee holding as follows:- "Further the jurisdictional Hon'ble Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orks for 300 days in that year the additional wages paid to him is to be allowed as deduction at 30% of the additional wages paid to him in that year should be allowed as deduction for three Assessment years and that he need not be in employment for the subsequent period for claiming deduction u/s.80JJAA of the Act. It was held that once the deduction is allowed in the first year then, 30% of such additional wages is allowable as deduction in each of the subsequent two years. However in Assessee's own case for AY 2005-06 & 2006-07, in ITA No.151 & 152/Bang/2016 order dated 16.12.2016 the Tribunal remanded identical issue to the AO for fresh consideration. Similar order was passed in AY 2010-11 in IT(TP) A.No.163/Bang/2015 order dated 24.6.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
