TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 708
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and in law and also perverse in not following the judicial pronouncements. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in observing that the appellant has not responded to the AO during remand proceedings without giving an opportunity to the assessee to find out the reasons for such failure. 3. The learned CIT(A) deprived the assessee of explaining that the investors when summoned could not attend the proceedings due to pre occupation with farming activities and filed letters to that effect and the AO without providing another opportunity has concluded that the investors has not responded and thereby arrived at an adverse conclusion. 4. Without prejudice to the above ground, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the ratio in the case of Love....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the assessee company. However, the assessee could not produce the same. In view of the same, we do not find any merit in the grounds raised by the assessee and they are accordingly rejected. 4. As regards Ground No.4, brief facts of the case are that the assessee which is engaged in the business of manufacturing of pharmaceutical intermediates, filed its return of income for the A.Y 2010-11 on 10.09.2009, declaring total income of Rs. 60,66,939. During the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, the AO observed that the assessee has received investment from various parties to the extent of Rs. 1,12,94,418. The assessee also submitted copies of the confirmation letters of the share applicants. AO asked the assessee to furnish copy o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the company has received State Investment Subsidy of Rs. 10.00 lakhs. Assessee was asked to furnish the details of the investment subsidy and the assessee explained that the investment subsidy of Rs. 10.00 lakhs was received on 12.07.2005 for the building constructed at the factory and is credited to the capital a/c which is part and parcel of the reserves. AO noticed that the assessee has claimed depreciation on factory building @10% without reducing the subsidy received and claimed depreciation on the entire value of the asset. Therefore, he disallowed the excess claim of depreciation by reducing 10% of depreciation on the factory building and added it to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved by this addition, assessee preferred ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e file of the AO. 7. As regards disallowance of contributions of the employees towards ESI & PF, we find that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (223 Taxman 0398 (2014). It is stated by the learned Counsel for the assessee that the payment was made before the date of filing of the return of income by the assessee. Further, we find that this issue is also covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusion, reported in (2009) 319 ITR 306 (S.C) wherein it has been held that both the employees as well as employers contribution are allowable as deduction u/s 36(1)(va) provided ass....