Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh
Asst.Year 2013-2014 SA No.163/Coch/2023 Gemwood (Division of GMD The Assistant Commissioner International), Devi Kripa of Income-tax, v. Chittoor Road, Valanjambalam Non-Corporate Circle 1(1) Cochin – 682 016 Kochi. PAN : AABFG8896R. (Appellant/Applicant) (Respondent) Appellant/Applicant by : Sri.K.Sankaranarayanan, CA Respondent by : Smt.V.Swarnalatha, Sr.DR Date of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 Date of Hearing : 16.08.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : This assessee’s appeal in (alongwith its stay application SA No.163/Coch/2023 therein) for assessment year 2012-2013 arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) / NFAC vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1055274733(1) dated 21.08.2023 in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act” hereinafter.
Heard both the parties. Case files perused.
Coming to the assessee’s first and foremost substantive ground challenging sec.14A r.w.r.8D disallowance of SA No.163/Coch/2023. Gemwood (Division of GMD International). Rs.4,53,683 made in the course of assessment proceedings dated 17.12.2016 as upheld in the CIT(A) order herein, the clinching fact which emerges at the outset is that the tax payer had not derived any exempt income and therefore, we quote [2015] CIT v. Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 97(Guj.)’ Cheminvest Ltd., v. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Del.); PCIT vs. Avantha Realty Ltd., {2024] 164 taxmann.com 376 (Cal.) to delete the same. The assessee succeeds in its first and foremost substantive ground.
The assessee's latter substantive ground challenging PF/ESI of Rs.48,217 is concerned, learned counsel vehemently submits that the same had been credited to the corresponding account before the "due" date of filing return u/s.139(1) of the Act. He could hardly rebut the fact that the hon'ble apex court's recent landmark decision in Checkmate Services (P.) Limited v. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC) has already decided the issue against the assessee and in favour of the department that the relevant "due" date is as per the corresponding statute than that u/s.139(1) of the Act. We accordingly confirm this latter disallowance in the above terms. This, assessee's appeal SA No.194/Coch/2023 is dismissed as rendered infructuous. Ordered accordingly.