TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1411
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income on 27.09.2009 declaring total income at NIL. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice u/s.143(2) of the Income Tax Act was issued on 25th September, 2010, which was duly served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts, it reveals to the Assessing Officer that assessee has collected the employees' contribution but failed to make deposits of such amounts in the PF accounts of those employees within time limit provided under the PF and ESI Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has made a disallowance of Rs. 1,81,414/-. 4. On appeal, ld. First Appellate Authority has deleted the disallowance on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 16% Rs.23,50,167/- Interest @ 12% Rs.17,62,625/- Difference Rs. 5,87,542/- Cama Motors Pvt. Ltd. Interest @ 16% Rs. 4,78,846/- Interest @ 12% Rs. 3,83,077/- Difference Rs. 95,769/- Accordingly, excess payment of interest of Rs. 6,83,311/- is disallowed." 8. On appeal, ld. CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance. We find from the computation of income in the assessment order that Assessing Officer has made disallowance of Rs. 6,83,311/-. However, in the ground, Revenue has taken a figure of Rs. 21,83,749/-. This figure does not emerge from the impugned orders. It is an erroneous mention of the ground. 9. With the assistance of ld. Sr. D.R., we have gone through the record carefully. Section 40A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 rendered in case of Vipul Y. Mehta vs. ACIT has been brought to our notice, wherein Tribunal has upheld the allowance of the interest rate @ 18% per annum to the relatives on unsecured loan. Considering all these aspects, we are of the view that ld. First Appellate Authority has appreciated the controversy in right perspective. Assessee has not extended any undue benefit to the persons covered u/s.40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act. This ground of Revenue's appeal is rejected. 10. In the next ground of appeal, Revenue has pleaded that ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by Assessing Officer u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act. 11. The brief facts of the case are that on perusal of the accounts, it reveals to the Assessing Officer that a....