TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 768
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it on 26.9.2009, declaring a total income of Rs. 69,10,804. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has collected employees contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI amounting to Rs. 9,53,795 and Rs. 1,06,465. The said amounts, totaling to Rs. 10,60,260, were treated by the Assessing Officer as the income of the assessee under S.2(24)(x) of the Act, and since the same were not paid by the assessee within the due dates mentioned in the respective Acts, disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer under S.36(va) of the Act. 4. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on this issue, relying inter-alia on the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT V/s. Shakti Bhog Foods P. Ltd. (ITA No.2777 to 2781/Del/2010 dated 28.6.2011), wherein it was held relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT V/s. Vinay Cements Ltd. (213 CTR 268), that the employees contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI having been paid by the assessee before the due date of filing of the return of income for the year under consideration, it was entitled to claim d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der S.201(1) of the Act for its failure to deduct tax at source from the payment made on account of audit fee and therefore, no disallowance can be made on account of audit fee, as per the second proviso to S.40(a)(ia). Although the learned Departmental Representative has contended that the said second proviso has been inserted in the statute by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1.4.2013, it is noted, the same has been treated as retrospectively applicable from 1.4.2005 by the coordinate Bench(Bangalore) of this Tribunal in the case of G.Shankar V/s.ACIT(ITA No.1832/Bang/2013 for assessment year 2005-06). We, therefore, restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for the limited purpose of verifying as to whether the assessee company is treated as an assessee in default under S.201(1) of the Act for its failure to deduct tax at source from the payment made on account of audit fee. If it is found on such verification that no order under S.201(1) is passed to this effect, the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the disallowance made under S.40(a)(ia) on account of audit fee. Grounds No.2 and 3 of the assessee's appeal are accordingly treated as allowed for statis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....07), cited by the learned counsel for the assessee, the term 'computer' should be interpreted liberally, broadly and in consonance with the intent of the legislation and working of the entire system as a whole. In the case of ITO V/s. Samiran Majumdar (supra), a reference was made by the Tribunal to Explanation (a) to sub-section (xi) of S.36(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961, wherein the 'computer system' has been defined as follows- "'computer system' means a device or collection of devices including input and output support devices and excluding calculators which are not programmable and capable of being used in conjunction with external files, or more of which contain computer programmes, electronic instructions, input data and output data, that performs functions including, but not limited to, logic, arithmetic, data storage and retrieval, communication and control" In the said case of Samiran Majumdar (supra), it was reported by the Inspector of Income Tax Department, after verifying the function of the printer and the scanner, that they ran with the help of computer and were external devices attached to the computer with the help of cables. On the basis of this report of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re the learned CIT(A). We therefore, consider it fair and proper and in the interests of justice to restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the same afresh, after taking into consideration the explanation offered by the assessee regarding the usage or application of the concerned items/assets in the light of the judicial pronouncements discussed above. Grounds No.4 to 7 of the assessee's appeal are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 16. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 12th November, 2014. ============= Document 1 11 Visu International Ltd., is engaged in the business of coaching the students who are preparing for the examinations like GRE, TROFEL, and other Universities for getting admission for MS to be obtained from Foreign Universities. The students are getting admission from more than 18 Universities abroad and being given coaching for the preparation of qualifying test for getting admission. In the process of above, the students are given online coaching through le....