Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI
Before: Ms. Sushma ChowlaDr. B. R. R. Kumar
Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-32, New Delhi dated 27.06.2017.
Following ground has been raised by the revenue:
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.1,09,754/- made by the AO on account of employee’s contribution to PF deposited beyond the ude date u/s 2(24)(x) r.w. section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the cases, the ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the disallowance
2 ADM Agro Inds. India Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.1,76,88,619/- made by the AO u/s 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 r.w.r 8D of Income-tax Rules.”
Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record.
From the records, it is found that the employee contribution to PF has been deposited before filing of the return. The Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs. 109574/- being the employees contribution towards the PF deposited after the due date u/s 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act, 1961. It was argued by the Ld. AR that the amounts have already been deposited before filing of the Income Tax Return on 9.11.2011 and 05.04.2012. Since, the amounts have already been paid before filing of the return as provided under section 36(1)(va) the Income Tax Act and keeping in view the judgment of Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT Vs AIMLI Ltd. 321 ITR 508, wherein the Hon’ble High Court allowed the deduction of payment of employees contribution towards the PF before filing of the return, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed.
Ground No. 2 deals with disallowance of Rs. 176,88,619/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14 of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. The average value o the investments determined by the Assessing Officer was Rs. 81,40,52,960/- and average value of the assets Rs. 4,21,36,40,419/-. It was argued by the Ld. AR that no exempt income has been earned by the assessee during the year. The revenue has not disputed the factual position. Hence, keeping in view the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case Cheminvest Ltd. Vs CIT in dated 02.09.2015, we hereby decline to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT (A) in deleting the addition made u/s 14A.
3 ADM Agro Inds. India Pvt. Ltd.
In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 05/11/2019