2013 (10) TMI 559

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....see, they were heard together and disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. We shall first take up the assessee's appeal for adjudication: ITA No.1686/Bang/2012 (Assessee appeal) 3. The assessee's ground No.3 is not maintainable as the charging of interest u/s 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act is mandatory and consequential in nature. 3.1 The solitary issue that raises for our consideration is: whether the CIT (A) is justified in restricting the claim of deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act. 3.1.1 Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows: 3.1.2 The assessee is a company engaged in the manufacturing precision components. A return of income was filed for the concerned assessment year, declaring a total income of Rs.6,46,4....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... machining charges are to be reduced from the export turnover. The High Court order also makes it clear that the computation is to be done as per the principles laid down in the case of CIT vs. K. Ravindranathan Nair (2007) reported in 295 ITR 228 (SC). 7.4 On a perusal of the issue, I find that tehmatter is swuarely covered by the case of ACG Associated Capsules P Ltd vs. CIT (Central)-IV Mumbai (2012) 343 ITR 89 (SC) where the learned Supreme Court has held that only the net amount of the total income reckoned for the purpose of profits of the business of the assessee is to be reduced under explanation (baa) of clause(i) of section 80HHC. I may also mention that following this order of the Apex Court, the ITAT Bangalore, in the appella....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sue in favour of Revenue and the assessee has filed an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Since the assessee is already before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this case can also be taken before the appellate forum for redressal. It is ordered accordingly. 6. We shall now proceed to adjudicate the cross objection of the Revenue as under: C.O. No.73/Bang/2013 - Cross Objection of the Revenue 6.1 A solitary issue raised by the Revenue for adjudication is: Whether the CIT (A) was justified in deleting the addition made on employees' contributions to PF & ESI amounting to Rs.2,76,840 and Rs.12,823 respectively as per the provisions of s.2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act?. 6.2 Briefly stated, during the course of the assessment proce....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot be allowed since the same were not paid by the assessee in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act. 6.4 On the other hand, the learned AR had supported the findings of the CIT (A). It was pleaded that there was no infirmity in the finding of the CIT (A) warranting the intervention of this Bench. 6.5 We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the relevant materials on record and also the case laws on which either of the party have placed their reliance. It was the submission of the learned AR that the employees' contributions towards ESI & PF were duly paid to the respective authorities before the due date for filing the return of the relevant assessment year and that on account of proviso to s. 43B as am....