TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 810
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... came to be dismissed. 2. The assessee's appeal sought to challenge disallowance under Section 14A along with Section 8D(2)(iii) which came to be confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)]. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that by offering disallowance in respect of direct expenditure in relation to investment made for the earning of exempt income under Section 14A read with Section 8D(2)(i), then disallowance under Section 8D(2)(iii) cannot be made. The assessee has not challenged the order of the revenue. However, the revenue being aggrieved by the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal has proposed the following three questions as substantial questions of law : "(i) Whether, on the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as filed on 10th October, 2009 for Rs. 3,30,27,019/- in view of some arithmetical error. The return was processed and the case of the assesee was selected under scrutiny and notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2) were sent. The Assessing Officer then made addition by disallowing Rs. 32,17,444/- under Section 14A after reducing suo motu disallowance made by the assessee of Rs. 6,07,305/- and also observed that the assessee has defaulted in payment of Rs. 9,770/- towards employee's contribution under the Employees State Insurance Scheme (ESIC). Hence, that addition was made by the Assessing Officer. It was further observed that the assessee had obtained a loan from M/s. Dewas Soya Ltd. in which assessee held 38.31% shares. According to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct has been considered in the appeal filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal which concurred in the decision of the CIT (A) holding that the provision of Section 2(22)(e) was not applicable to the company since the company was a public company. The Assessing Officer's observation to the effect that the assesse has procured funds from M/s.Dewas Soya Ltd in which the assessee had 38.31% shares was without basis and therefore, the amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- could not have been treated as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Tribunal did not find any infirmity with the order of CIT (A) which it found was a well reasoned order. Accordingly, the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) were not attracted. 5. We find nothing wrong....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Supreme Court in the case of the CIT (A) vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) held that the effect of deletion of second proviso to Section 43B of the Finance Act, 2003 was addressed and in view of retrospective effect of the decision, the assessee would be entitled to benefit of the company. 7. In the present case, the Tribunal found that the assessee had deposited the contribution within the grace period and having done so, even assuming applicability of Section 43B, the requirement of law is deemed to have been complied. Furthermore, the payment having been made within grace period, the same was held to have been made within the period prescribed by law. On this ground also the order of the CIT (A) was upheld by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has been realised within fifteen days from the due date." 9. Thus, the employers such as Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. (supra) were entitled to deductions only if the contributions to any fund for the welfare of the employees stood credited on or before the due date. This once again led to difficulties for the assessee. The Ministry of Finance, meanwhile, considering various representations inserted an amendment in the Finance Act, 2003 which came into effect from 1st April, 2004 deleting the second proviso to section 43B and further amending the first proviso. "Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply in relation to any sum which is actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date applicable in hi....