TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (11) TMI 323
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd Assessee is in cross-objection. 3. First ground is with regard to addition made on account of late payment of Employee's contribution of PF/ESI of Rs.5,16,132/-. The ld.Sr.DR supported the order of the AO and submitted that the ld.CIT(A) ought not to have deleted the addition. On the contrary, ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered by various judicial pronouncements in favour of assessee. He placed reliance on the decision(s) of the coordinate Bench (ITAT Ahmedabad) in ITA No.1545/Ahd/2005 dated 23/01/2009 rendered in the case of Dynamic Industries Ltd., and decision in ITA No.2609/Ahd/2009 dated 03/03/2009 rendered in the case of Gujarat Containers Ltd. and also the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... however assessing officer treated the same as deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee-company. Ld.CIT(A) has followed the decision of the Special Bench of ITAT Mumbai rendered in the case of ACIT vs. Bhaumik Colour Pvt. Ltd.(supra). The ld.Sr.DR could not controvert the same and nothing has been brought on record suggesting that the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Special Bench Mumbai in the case of ACIT vs. Bhaumik Colour Pvt.Ltd.(supra) is not applicable. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld.CTI(A), the same is hereby upheld. This ground of Revenue's appeal is rejected. 7. Third ground is with regard to deletion of addition of Rs.12,21,393/- made u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act on account of accumulated profits in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owing grounds in its cross-objection:- 1. The ld.CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.12,33,628/- made by the AO u/s.14A r.w.r.8D without considering/following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. 326 ITR 1 (SC), wherein interalia it is held that section 14A cannot be applied unless there is a proximate cause for disallowance. The AO in the instant case having not established any such proximate cause, the impugned addition ought to have been deleted by the ld.CIT(A). 1.1. The learned CIT(A) also erred in not appreciating the fact that during the year under consideration ne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear under consideration. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. reported at (2009) 319 ITR 204 (P&H) and decision of Hon'ble Mumbai High Court rendered in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT reported at 328 ITR 81 (Bom.). He submitted that the decision of Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg.Co.Ltd. has been followed by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sintex Industries Ltd. reported as 33 taxman.com 240. The ld. DR could not controvert the submissions made by the ld.counsel for the assessee. 13. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material available on record and gone t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nfirmed." The ld.AR submitted that this finding of ld. CIT(A) is containing to the law settled by various judicial pronouncements. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the facts and the decision relied upon by the ld.AR. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. reported at (2009) 319 ITR 204 (P&H) has held that in the present case, admittedly, the assessee did not make any claim for exemption. In such a situation, section 14A could have no application. In this case also, the assessee has not claimed any exempt income in this year. Therefore, respectfully following the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of CIT vs. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd.(supr....