9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 954/- made by the AO on account of Employee stock option Plan (ESOP) expenses. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,40,45,473/- made by the AO u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of non-deduction of TDS on reimbursement of circuit expenses. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 21,78,564/- made by the AO on account of employee's contribution to PF deposited beyond the due date u/s 2(24)(x) r.w. section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,05, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng reliance on the assessment order. 10. Per contra, ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated what has been stated before the lower authorities. It is the say of the ld. counsel for the assessee that now this issue is no more res integra as the same has been decided by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Lemon Tree Hotels Ltd ITA No. 107/2015 order dated 18.08.2015, seized with the following facts : "2. The question sought to be projected by the Revenue is whether the ITAT erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,28,19,169/- made by the Assessing Officer ('AO') by way of disallowance of the expenses debited as cost of Employees Stock Option ('ESOP') in profit and loss account? 3. The Court has been shown a c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee was asked to justify. 13. The assessee, in its reply, explained that it has only reimbursed the impugned amount to its associate in USA towards circuit expenses incurred by it on behalf of the assessee. It was explained that such expenses have been incurred on telecommunication services rendered by the service provider to AIPL outside India which was paid by AFSI on behalf of AIPL and subsequently, reimbursed by AIPL to AFSI. 14. The assessee furnished copies of invoices raised by AFSI. It was contended that reimbursement provisions of section 40a(ia) do not apply. 15. Reply of the assessee did not find any favour with the Assessing Officer who went on to make addition of Rs. 1,40,45,473/-. 16. The assessee questioned the addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee in the case of Checkmate Services 448 ITR 518. 22. Respectfully following the same, the findings of the ld. CIT(A) are reversed. Addition is sustained. Ground No. 3 is allowed. 23. Ground No. 4 relates to the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 1,05,875/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A of the Act. 24. It has been strongly contended that during the year under consideration, the assessee did not earn exempt income. Therefore, no disallowance is called for u/s 14A of the Act. 25. We are of the considered view that if no exempt income is earned by the assessee, no disallowance can be made u/s 14A r.w.r 8D of the Rules as held by the Special Bench of ITAT in the case of Chemi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
