TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal affirms CIT(A) decisions, dismissing Revenue's appeals. Legal principles and precedents upheld.</h1> <h3>DCIT, Cir. 2 (1) (1) Ahmedabad. Versus M/s. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd.</h3> DCIT, Cir. 2 (1) (1) Ahmedabad. Versus M/s. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. - [2019] 75 ITR (Trib) 232 (ITAT [Ahm]) Issues involved:1. Deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS on foreign commission payments.3. Disallowance of deduction under Section 80IC for certain receipts.4. Disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) for delayed deposit of employees' contribution towards PF and ESI.Issue 1: Deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961The primary issue revolves around the deletion of disallowances of Rs. 5,21,79,627 claimed by the assessee under Section 80IA. The assessee, engaged in agro processing, initially claimed a deduction of Rs. 2,18,33,004 in its return, which was later revised to Rs. 7,40,12,631 during assessment proceedings. The AO disallowed the revised claim, citing the expiry of the time limit for revising the return. However, the CIT(A) accepted the revised claim, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT, which allows the first appellate authority to entertain fresh claims. The CIT(A) also referenced the Madras High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills P.Ltd., which supports the notion that unabsorbed losses prior to the initial assessment year should not be set off against eligible profits. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.Issue 2: Disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS on foreign commission paymentsThe Revenue challenged the deletion of disallowances of Rs. 1,53,17,547 and Rs. 1,51,52,353 for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14, respectively, under Section 40(a)(i) due to non-deduction of TDS on foreign commission payments. The AO disallowed the commission payments on two grounds: lack of identity and evidence of services rendered by foreign agents, and non-deduction of TDS. The CIT(A) found that the assessee had provided necessary details and that the foreign commission agents had no permanent establishment in India, making the income non-taxable in India. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. and other relevant judgments.Issue 3: Disallowance of deduction under Section 80IC for certain receiptsThe Revenue disputed the deletion of disallowances of Rs. 19,33,215 and Rs. 11,74,258 for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14, respectively, under Section 80IC for certain receipts. The AO excluded interest on NSC, electricity deposits, staff loans, recoveries from transporters, and sundry balances written back from eligible income. The CIT(A) allowed deductions for interest on electricity deposits, recoveries from transporters, and sundry balances written back, citing their direct nexus with the manufacturing process. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing relevant judgments, including CIT Vs. Meghalaya Steel Ltd. and CIT Vs. Seshasayee Papers & Board Ltd.Issue 4: Disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) for delayed deposit of employees' contribution towards PF and ESIThe assessee's cross-objection challenged the disallowance of Rs. 7,53,156 under Section 36(1)(va) for delayed deposit of employees' contribution towards PF and ESI. The AO disallowed the claim due to late deposits, and the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, relying on the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's cross-objection, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision.ConclusionThe Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on all issues, dismissing the Revenue's appeals and the assessee's cross-objection. The judgments relied upon by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal provided a comprehensive legal basis for the decisions, ensuring adherence to established legal principles and precedents.
TaxTMI 