CIT vs. CHAABI ADVERTISING

o/o O7.O7.2O11 Present: Mr. Tax ,-l 'l #L Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel for the lncome Depa rtment/ appel la nt. + ITA No.8L2/2OL1 * The additions made by the Assessing Officer which were to be questioned are that the Assessee had claimed t 2,7 4,4151- as "contribution to.Provident and other funds" to Sahara lndia Employees Contributory Provident Fund Trust which was disallowed on the ground that the present assessee was a different entity from M/s Sahara India and the Trust was recognized under Section 2(38) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessee had also claimed prior period of expenditure of a sum of <29,7341- which was disallowed on the ground that the Assessee was falling under Merchandize System of Assessing, The Assessee had also claimed deduction of Rs.4808360, comprising of {43,00,000/- lac as license fee paid to Airport Authority of lndia and {5,08,360/- as bank guarantee commission. This was disallowed on the ground that no evidence showing the said payment to Airport Authority of lndia was produced. In Appeal, the CIT (A) decided all the three issues in favour of the Assessee. Insofar as the first deduction claimed by the Assessee is concerned, the CIT(A) observed that the provident fund contribution was recognized under Section 2(38) of the Act and there was no reason .fr 2011:DHC:14810-DB

for Assessing officer to make disalf owance. lt was afso found, as a fact that the emproyees who were working for the Assessing company were all deducted from M/s sahara India and because of this reason, the provident fund contribution was given to the said trust. rt is crear from the above that in fact the provident fund contribution as made by the Assessee pertains to the emproyees who were the members of the trust which trust was dulyr recognized under Section 2(39) of the Act. fnsofar as payments to AirporL Authority of India is concerned, not only the Assessee produced the license agreement entered into between the Assessee and the Airport Authority of India as per which the ricense fee payabre was tg.6 rac per month, the Assessee arso produced five receipts of the payment towards such ricense fee. since, all these findings are upherd by the Tribunar in Appear, we do not find any question of law much less substantial question of law. Insofar as third deduction is concerned, it is clear from the above that the Assessee has been abre to prove that the payment of r 8.06 lac was to be made towards license fee to M/s Airport Authority of India and by producing the receipts thereof, it has also satisfactorify proved the actual payments made. rt is a finding of fact and, therefore, no interference is cailed for, Insofar as other two issues are concerned, the amount invorved is marginar and we do not see any reason to 2011:DHC:14810-DB

> pertaining to fi interfere leaving the question issue. The appeal is dismissed. -a JULY 07, ZOLL rd of law open which A{)-4t M.L. MEHTA, J. A.K. SlKRl, J. 2011:DHC:14810-DB