TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 190
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee. 3. In the revenue's appeal in ITA No. 52/Kol/2011 for A.Y 2004-05, the revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- I) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,44,81,560/- made on account of liability for bonus pertains to assessment year 1997-98 & 1998-99 written back in the year of assessment when assessee did not file the return of income for the assessment years 1997-98 & 1998-99 and there is nothing on record to show that the provision of bonus so created by debiting the P & L A/C was disallowed in the assessment in the relevant earlier assessment years. 2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld.CIT(Appeals) ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amount was credited in the P & L A/C and or forming part of business income. 4 In respect of ground no.1, it was submitted by the learned CIT/.DR that this issue was against the action of the ld.CIT(A) in allowing the liability for bonus debited in the P & L A/c in the relevant assessment years. It was the submission that the liability for bonus pertained to the assessment years 1997-98 & 1998-99, for which assessment years the assessee had not filed its returns. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) had allowed the same on the ground that the said expenditure have never been claimed and allowed in any of the earlier years. He has vehemently supported the order of the AO. 5. In reply, the learned AR for the assessee has supported ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ayed payment towards ESI contribution fund was not penal in nature. It was the submission that there were provisions for levy of penalty under the ESI (General) Regulations, 1950. Such penalty had not been levied on the assessee. It was the submission that interest was chargeable u/s. 31-A of the ESI (General) Regulations Act, 1950. It was the submission that the ld.CIT(A) was right in holding that the interest was compensatory. He has supported the order of the ld.CIT(A). 9. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the regulations 31A of the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 clearly shows that interest on contribution due, but not paid in time is compensatory in nature. In fact, regulation 31C of the E....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the learned CIT/DR that this issue was against the action of the ld.CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.98,26,543/- and Rs.27,61,088/- on account of delayed payment of the employees' contribution to PF/ESI respectively. He has vehemently supported the order of the AO. 14. In reply, the learned AR for the assessee has submitted that the contributions to ESI & PF in respect of the employees' contribution have been paid before the due date of filing of return of income, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Vijay Shree Limited in ITAT No.245 of 2011 in GA No. 2607 of 2011 dated 7th September 2011, the same was allowable 15. We have considered the rival submission. As ....