Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by revenue is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-16, (hereinafter referred as ld. CIT(A), Mumbai dated 14.06.2017 for Assessment Year 2014-15. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:
i) "Whether on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT-(A) erred in allowing the assessee's claim of deduction u/s 10AA on interest on FOR of Rs. 79,69,006/- and Sundry balance written back of Rs. 11,15,904/- without appreciating the fact that the provision of section 10AA which states that --- “a deduction of hundred per cent of profits and gains as are derived from the export of articles or things------" (emphasis supplied). A plain reading of this provision makes clear that the gain or loss has to be exclusively related or derived from business activity of export?"
Mum 2017-M/s GEBBS Healthcare Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ii) "Whether on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT-(A) erred in allowing the assessee's claim of Employees contribution to PF and ESIC amounting to Rs. 19,657/- and Rs. 2,35,697/- respectively which were paid beyond due dates specified in the respective Act relying decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. and CIT Vs Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. which was not accepted by the Department filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court?" The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the ITO 9(3)(3) be restored.
At the outset of hearing, the ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submits that both the grounds of appeal
raised by revenue are covered in favour of assessee and against the revenue in assessee’s own case for Assessment Years 2010
11. (ITA No. 101/Mum/2016), 2011 12. (ITA No. 181/Mum/2017) & 2013 14. (in ITA No.5755/Mum/2016).
The ld. AR of the assessee furnished the copy of decisions of Tribunal for Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14.
On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the revenue after going through the grounds of appeal and the decision of Tribunal in assessee’s own fairly agreed that the grounds of appeal raised by revenue are covered in favour of assessee and against the revenue.
We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. Ground No.1 relates to claim of deduction under section 10AA. We have noted that similar ground of appeal
was raised by revenue in appeal for Assessment Year 2010
11. Mum 2017-M/s GEBBS Healthcare Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 101/Mum/2016 dated 05.01.2018 passed the following order:
3.2. Before us, the DR supported the order of AO and the AR relied upon the order of the FAA.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that that the FAA has given a finding of fact that sundry credit balance written back represented the sundry creditors related to the export business of the assessee and that the said expenses were considered as part of export business. There is nothing on record to prove that the order of the FAA is factually incorrect. Similarly, it is found that the disputed interest income was earned on fixed deposits pledged with bank or the authorised brokers, that it was a pre-requisite to carry the hedging transaction, that the revenue generated by it from overseas, that hedging transaction were entered into by the assessee as a safeguard against exchange rate fluctuation, that hedging is directly related to export business of the assessee. Considering these facts we are of the opinion that the order of the FAA does not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity, So, confirming the same, we decide the second effective ground of appeal against the AO.
5. Further, in appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12, the Tribunal by following the decision of Assessment Year 2010-11, passed the following order:
“8 Next issue relates to the eligibility of the assessee to claim deduction under Section 10AA of the Act in respect of interest income from FDI and sundry balances written back. For the reasons stated in the immediately preceding paragraphs, we hold that the assessee is entitled for deduction under Section 10B of the Act in respect of both the amounts and accordingly we uphold the order passed by the learned CIT(A) on this issue.”
Again in appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 in dated 19.12.2018 the Tribunal on identical grounds of ITA No. 5756 Mum 2017-M/s GEBBS Healthcare Solutions Pvt. Ltd. appeal by following the decision of earlier years passed the following order:
“8. I found that issue with regard to claim of deduction under section 10AA with regard to the interest income has already been decided by the Tribunal in assessee’s favour in the A.Y. 2010-11 vide order dated 05/01/2018.”
Considering the consistent view taken by the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal, we find that the ground of appeal raised by the revenue is covered in favour of the assessee. Even otherwise, the ld. CIT(A) followed the decision of Assessment Year 2011-12. Hence, ground no.1 of the appeal is dismissed.
Ground No.2 relates to deleting the disallowance under section 40a(ia) on account of ESIC & PF contribution paid beyond due date. We have noted that this ground of appeal is also covered in favour of assessee by the decision of Tribunal in assessee’s own case, wherein similar ground of appeal was allowed in favour of assessee by the Tribunal in the following manner:
Last effective ground of appeal is about allowing the claim of the assessee of employee’s contribution to PF and ESCI, amounting to Rs.2.34 lakhs and Rs.4.15 lakhs respectively that were paid beyond the due dates specified in respective Act. The AO had disallowed the disputed amounts as they were paid beyond the due dates. However, the FAA relying upon the cases of Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd.(ITA. 399 of 2012 and Ghatge Patil Transporters Ltd. ITA 1002 of 2012 and 1034 of 2012) held that employee’s contribution to PF had to allowed as deduction, if it was paid by the employer before the due date of filing of income.
Mum 2017-M/s GEBBS Healthcare Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
Considering the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Ghatge Patil Transporters Ltd. in of 2012 and 1034 of 2012, which was followed by co-ordinate bench of Tribunal, we do not find any merit in the ground of appeal
raised by revenue. 10. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27/03/2019.