M V OMNI PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2001/AHD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 February 2019AY 2014-154 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to provident fund and ESIC was justified based on the Gujarat High Court's decision. The disallowance of deduction under section 80IA(4) was also confirmed by following a co-ordinate bench decision in the assessee's own case.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the disallowance of deduction for employee's contribution to provident fund and ESIC, and for deduction under section 80IA(4). The assessee's counsel admitted that these issues were decided against the assessee in previous assessments.

What were the issues?

Whether late deposit of employee's contribution to PF/ESIC is allowable as deduction and whether the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4) for the nature of its contract.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 80IA(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH

Before: Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Jignesh P. Parikh, A.R
For Respondent: Ms. Aparna Agrawal, Sr. D.R, Shri Jignesh P. Parikh, A.R

आदेश/ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2014-15, arises from order of the CIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad dated 03-07-2017, in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”.

I.T.A No. 2001/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 2 M.V. Omni Projects (India) Ltd vs. DCIT

2.

The assessee has filed two grounds of appeal against the order of ld. CIT(A). The other ground nos. 3, 4 & 5 of appeal are of general nature which do not require any adjudication.

3.

During the course of appellate proceedings before us the ld. counsel has submitted before us that ground no. 1 in respect of disallowance of deduction of Rs. 3,29,935/- by invoking provision of section 36(1)(va) in respect of employee’s contribution to provident fund, ESIC has been decided against the assessee in view of the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 41 taxman.com 100 (Guj).

4.

Regarding second ground of appeal of disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IA(4) to the amount of Rs. 7,75,30,680/- the ld. counsel admitted that this issue has also been covered against the assessee by the decision of Co- ordinate Bench of the ITAT in the case of the assessee itself. The ld. counsel has also submitted a copy of decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT vide ITA No. 1146/Ahd/2016 M.V Omni Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT dated 05-06-2018.

5.

With the assistance of ld. representatives, we have gone through the material on record and noticed that Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT vide aforesaid order has adjudicated both the issues in the case of the assessee itself for the assessment year 2012-13. The relevant part of decision of the aforesaid is reproduced as under:- “2. The grievances of the assessee are on two counts: (i) disallowance of claim of deduction of Rs.3,77,927/- in respect of the Employees’ contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC which was

I.T.A No. 2001/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 3 M.V. Omni Projects (India) Ltd vs. DCIT

deposited late but before filing return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act and (ii) confirming the disallowances of the legitimate claim of deduction of Rs.3,80,61,802/- u/s.80IA(4) of the Act. 3. When the matter was called for hearing, the Ld.AR for the assessee with all his fairness submitted before us that the first issue relating to the contribution of Employees’ PF has been decided against the assessee in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 41 taxmann.com 100 (Guj.) by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court on the premise that the deposit towards Employees’ PF contribution has been made after the dates prescribed under the relevant Act. The Ld.DR supports the orders passed by the authorities below. Taking into consideration of the above facts, we decline to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) in parity with the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation. The second issue relating to the disallowance of the claim of deduction of Rs.3,80,61,802/- u/s.80IA(4) of the Act is also covered in assessee’s own case for AY 2008-09 against the assessee, as fairly submitted by the Ld.AR at the time of the hearing at the instant appeal. A copy of the said order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in ITA No.118/Ahd/2012 for AY 2008-09 dated 28.10.2015 has also been handed over to us by the Ld.AR. The relevant portion whereof is narrated hereinbelow:- “5.1. We have heard both the parties and gone though the material available on record. So far as ground No.1 regarding disallowance of the claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act is concerned, the similar ground was raised in ITA No.1083/Ahd/2010 for AY 2006-07 (in assessee’s own case) and the Tribunal, vide its order dated 15/06/2012 in para-7, has decided this issue by observing as under:- “7. We have perused the orders of authorities below and arguments from both the side. The assessee is a work contractor of the Railway department who has executed the contract for supply of materials trenching, laying, testing, commissioning of 4 quad cables, installation and commissioning of gate, telephones and emergency posts, etc. for the work of provision of 4 quad cable in Rajkot-Varaval Section of Rajkot/Bhavnagar Divisions of Western Railways. The nature of the contract is civil which had been assigned by the Railway Department in part of already rail laid and no new railway line or telecommunication system has been executed by the assessee. Thus, the ld.CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition of the AO. We do not find any reason to revert the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, the order of CIT(A) is confirmed and the assessee’s appeal is dismissed.” 5.2. Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Coordinate Bench, taking a consistent view, for the same reasoning, this ground of assessee’s appeal is rejected.” 4. The Ld.DR supports the orders passed by the authorities below. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. We find that the facts are identical to the facts available in the instant case. We, therefore, respectfully following the said decision passed by the Co-ordinate Bench, taking a consistent view on the basis of the reasons assigned therein reject the particular issue raised by the assessee.”

6.

Respectfully following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT as supra on similar issue and fact we do not find any merit in the appeal of

I.T.A No. 2001/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 4 M.V. Omni Projects (India) Ltd vs. DCIT

the assessee, therefore, both the ground of appeal of the assessee are dismissed.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18-02-2019 Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (AMARJIT SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 18/02/2019 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद

More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)

All 6,054 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(va) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →