2016 (8) TMI 220 - HC - Income Tax

Court upholds deductions for timely deposits, clarifies application of section 35AB to capital expenditure.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV Versus SAYAJI INDUSTRIES LTD

The Court dismissed the Tax Appeals, confirming the Tribunal's decision to delete disallowances of delayed employee contributions to PF, ESI, and ... Disallowance made u/s 36(1)(v)(a) - delayed employees contribution to P.F. and on account of technical know how fees - Held that:- Considering the decision of this Court in the cases of Amoli Organics (P) Ltd. (2013 (11) TMI 971 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ) and Sayaji Industries Ltd. (supra), the questions which are raised in the present appeals are required to be answered in favour of the assessee as the facts are akin in these appeals and the said decision will inure to the benefit of the assessee as held that the assessee was entitled to the exemption as the amount was paid during grace period permissible / available under the Provident Fund Act - The asseessee shall be entitled to exemption / deduction under section 43 to the extent payment was made within the grace period - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Disallowance of delayed employee contributions to PF and ESI.2. Disallowance of technical knowhow fees.3. Confirmation of employee contributions to PF and ESI.Analysis:1. Disallowed Contributions to PF and ESI:In Tax Appeal No. 2486 of 2010, the Assessing Officer disallowed employee contributions to PF and ESI made after the due date under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The CIT(A) deleted these additions, which was upheld by the Tribunal. The Court referred to previous judgments and held that if the employer contributions were deposited within the grace period, the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 43B. The Court found no error in the Tribunal's decision and ruled in favor of the assessee.2. Technical Knowhow Fees Disallowance:Regarding Tax Appeal No. 2486 of 2010, the Assessing Officer disallowed technical knowhow fees. The CIT(A) deleted this disallowance, which was also upheld by the Tribunal. The Court cited a previous case to establish that section 35AB of the Act applies to capital expenditure, not to revenue expenditure like technical knowhow fees. The Court concluded that the deduction for such expenses was available even before the introduction of section 35AB and upheld the Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee.3. Confirmation of Employee Contributions to PF and ESI:In Tax Appeal No. 2577 of 2009, the Assessing Officer disallowed employee contributions to PF and ESI made after the due dates. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, and the Tribunal upheld this decision. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's findings and referred to previous judgments to support its decision. The Court held that the payment made within the grace period entitled the assessee to deduction under section 43B, leading to the confirmation of the Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee.In conclusion, the Court dismissed the Tax Appeals, confirming the Tribunal's decision to delete the disallowances related to delayed employee contributions to PF, ESI, and technical knowhow fees. The Court's judgment was based on established legal principles and previous decisions, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee against the revenue department.