TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (8) TMI 641
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs. 5,59,271 on account of employees' contributions to Provident Fund paid after the due date: a) In confirming that said amount is not a business receipt. b) In confirming that the said amount is not eligible for deduction u/s. 10A. c) In not appreciating that the once the amount is disallowed u/s. 36(1)(va) and form part of the business income, the same has to be considered for the purpose of computing deduction u/s. 10A. 2. Without prejudice to above, the CIT(A) ought to have allowed the said amount as deduction since the same was paid before the end of the year. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, modify or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 3. Brief facts of the issue are that it was noticed by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r provisions of sec. 2(24)(x), 36(va) and 56(2)(ic) of the Income-tax Act. The unpaid PF contribution of employees cannot be said to be a business receipt. If this receipt is allowed or to be treated as business receipt, then the assessee will be entitled to set off of all business expenditure against this receipt which is not permissible. The assessee's business is in software and not in dealing with contribution of PF of employees. We are, therefore, inclined to uphold the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is confirmed. 4. Against this the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The learned AR relied on the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (319 ITR 306) wherein it w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2000-01 and 2001-02 (cited supra) against the assessee. However, there is a judgement by the Bombay High Court, in favour of the assessee, in the case of CIT vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. (330 ITR 175) wherein the High Court held as under: "Held, (i) that interest income could not be taken as business income and could not be taken into account in computing the special deduction under section 80HHC. CIT v. Asian Star Co. Ltd. [2010]326 ITR 56 (Born) followed. (ii) That gross interest should be taken into account for purposes of exclusion under clause (baa) of the Explanation to section 80HHC. (ii) That the foreign exchange was realised by the assessee within the period of stipulated in law. The assessee had realised a larger amount in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowed. 9. Now coming to the appeal in ITA No. 2426/Hyd/2010 (Revenue appeal). The Revenue raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the learned CIT(A) is erroneous on facts and in law. 2. The learned CIT(A) ought to have held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee in foreign exchange was on account of travelling expenses which is necessary for providing technical services. 3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have held that the internet charges on delivery of the software includes internet charges on development of the software. 4. The findings of the CIT(A) is based on no evidence as he was merely relied upon the order of the ITAT for earlier years. 10. We have heard both the parties on this issue. This issue was covere....