Court directs recalculating income allocation based on publication and circulation proportions. Remands PF contributions for disallowance determination.

The High Court upheld the Assessing Officer's method of allocating advertisement expenses, rejecting the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s formula. The court directed the AO to recalculate income allocation based on the proportion of publication and circulation of the Ahmedabad edition between the units. Regarding late Provident Fund contributions, the High Court remanded the matter to determine the nature of contributions for disallowance under section 43B, emphasizing disallowance only applies to employees' contributions made after the due date. The High Court's decision favored the Revenue, instructing the AO to adjust the assessee's income accordingly.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to deduction on Weighted Average while allocating advertisement expenses for the purpose of calculation of deduction under section 80-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Disallowance under section 43B of the Income Tax Act for contributions to Provident Fund made beyond the due date specified in section 36(1)(va).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deduction on Weighted Average Allocation of Advertisement Expenses:
- Background: The respondent-assessee, a publication house, claimed deduction under section 80-I for its Nilgiri printing unit. The Assessing Officer (AO) scrutinized the allocation of advertisement income between the Nilgiri unit (eligible for deduction) and the Khanpur unit (non-eligible). The AO allocated 80% of the total advertisement income to the Ahmedabad edition and further divided this income between the Nilgiri and Khanpur units based on their respective publication volumes.
- CIT(A) Decision: The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] devised a new formula for allocating advertisement revenue, considering the weighted average of the percentage of newspapers printed and circulated from the Nilgiri unit versus the percentage of newspapers sold in Ahmedabad and printed at Nilgiri.
- Tribunal Decision: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s formula, recognizing the higher importance of city circulation in revenue generation.
- High Court Analysis: The High Court found that the CIT(A)'s formula lacked scientific basis and was based on unverified facts. The court emphasized that the news papers printed at both units were identical in content and quality. The court concluded that the most equitable method for income allocation would be based on the proportion of publication and circulation of the Ahmedabad edition between the two units, as originally done by the AO.
- Conclusion: The High Court restored the AO's method of allocation, rejecting the CIT(A)'s formula. The question was answered in favor of the Revenue, directing the AO to recompute the income accordingly.

2. Disallowance under Section 43B for Late Provident Fund Contributions:
- Background: The AO disallowed certain expenditures related to contributions towards Provident Fund and ESIC, made beyond the due date specified in section 36(1)(va).
- CIT(A) and Tribunal Decision: Both CIT(A) and the Tribunal deleted the disallowance, noting the delay was minimal and holding that disallowance was not justified if payments were made before the due date of filing the return.
- High Court Analysis: The High Court noted that the nature of the contributions (employer's or employees') was crucial for determining the disallowance. Employer's contributions, if paid late but before the return filing due date, would not attract disallowance. However, employees' contributions paid beyond the due date specified in section 36(1)(va) would disqualify the assessee from claiming deductions.
- Conclusion: The High Court remanded the matter to the AO to ascertain the nature of the contributions and determine the applicability of disallowance, emphasizing that disallowance would only apply to employees' contributions made beyond the due date.

Final Disposition:
All tax appeals were disposed of with directions to the AO to recompute the assessee's income from eligible and non-eligible units in accordance with the High Court's judgment. The High Court's decision favored the Revenue on both issues, subject to the specific observations and instructions provided in the judgment.

---