TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 1128
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with the accounting policies followed by the assessee. 2) Allowing deduction for the contribution of Rs. 46,28,663/- made to an unapproved gratuity fund. 3) Holding contribution to state renewal fund as allowable expenditure though it is not actual expenditure." 2. The 1st ground of revenue's appeal is against allowing prior period expenses by the ld CIT(A). the ld Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had claimed prior period expenses at Rs. 9,82,874/-, which includes T.A. expenses, subsidy, sales, repair and maintenance of plant and machinery, purchases and trade discount. The ld Assessing Officer gave reasonable opportunity of being heard, which was replied by the assessee. After considering the assessee's reply, the ld Assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e details we not that the approval for payment of these expenditure were given during the year and therefore the liability crystallized during the year in view of these facts and the consistent view of this Bench that the liability crystallized on approval of payment, we find no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) deleting the disallowance." Relying upon Hon'ble ITAT order dated 21/08/2009 in the case of the appellant in A.Y. 2006-07, facts being same this year, the A.O. is directed to delete the disallowance of Rs. 8,76,224/- as these expenses crystallized during the year and should be allowed." 4. Now the Revenue is in appeal before us. The learned D.R. vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer and prayed for confirmation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case of Rajasthan Finance corporation Limited where identical question has been decided by the Hon'ble ITAT in favour of the assessee. The assessee's reply was considered by the Assessing Officer and relied upon the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Electra (Jaipur) P. Ltd. (2006) 282 ITR 598 (All) and disallowed the expenses of Rs. 1,92,82,605/-. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter before the ld CIT(A), who had allowed the appeal by observing as under:- "After going through rival submissions it is seen that out of total amount of Rs. 1,92,82,605/- the appellant has not made payment of Rs. 1,46,53,942/- and the same has been disallowed by it in the computation of income filed in the retu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pect to contribution to gratuity fund is deleted." 8. Now the revenue is in appeal before us. The ld DR has vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer. At the outset, the ld AR of the assessee has supported the order of the ld CIT(A). 9. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. The issue is identical to A.Y. 2006-07, which has been considered by the Coordinate Bench in ITA No. 307/JP/2009 in assessee's own case. As the assessee has applied for its approval in time but formal approval had not been issued by the department, therefore, there is no fault on the assessee. The identical issue has been decided by the Coordinate Bench, which is squarely applicati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....such reserve and the right of company over such reserve. The High Court in CIT Vs. Jodhpur Co-operative Marketing Society (2005) 275 ITR 372 (Raj) came to the conclusion that such reserves under the control of society were for the ultimate benefit of society as well as its shareholder, so that such amount could not be excluded from income of society. Hence, it is clear that, transfer to education fund does not lead to diversion of income by overriding title; it is merely, an application of income, in view of foregoing decision, transfer of Rs. 7,58,134/- to state renewal fund is held as not allowable and the same is added to the total income of the assessee." 11. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ociety 275 ITR 372 (Raj) is distinguishable as in this case the amount was set apart for the shareholders of the society whereas in the present case amount was provided for the benefit of the employees. In view of this the contribution made to State Renewal Fund is allowable u/s 37(1)." Respectfully following Hon'ble ITAT order in the appellant's own case in A.Y. 2006-07 cited above the A.O. is directed to delete the disallowance of Rs. 7,58,134/- towards contribution to State Renewal Fund as facts are same this year." 12. Now the revenue is in appeal before us. The ld DR has vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer and the ld AR of the assessee has reiterated the arguments made before the ld CIT(A). It is further submitted....