TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1338
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atisfied with the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Ahmedabad presents this appeal against the same on the following amongst other grounds: 1. (a) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of Rs. 2,87,477/- and Rs. 22,076/- being the amounts of employees' Contribution to Provident Fund and Employees' State Insurance Contribution which were belatedly paid but before the end of the relevant previous year and also before the due date for filing the return of income. (b) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the impugned disallowance by invoking the provis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h to Shri Kantilal Zaveri on 07/12/2009 towards expenditure, in exceptional circumstances. It is therefore prayed that the disallowance made by the learned AO of Rs. 24,220/- may please be deleted. 3. (a) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of Rs. 6,16,371/- made by the AO out of expenditure on payment of commission to C. Doctor India Private Limited. (b) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred in law and on facts in confirming impugned disallowance of Rs. 6,16, 371/- made by the AO out of expenditure on payment of commission to C. Doctor India Private Limited on the alleged ground that no tax was deducted at source from suc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....satisfaction. The appellant has also furnished copies of the audited Profit & Loss Account, Balance Sheet and also the Auditor's Report in Form No.3CA and 3CD. The last hearing of the appellant's case was held on 22/03/2013 when the AO through ordersheet entry asked the A.R. to show cause why the foreign travel expenses of Rs. 2,01,140/- and commission of Rs. 6,16,371/- paid to C. Doctor India Pvt. Ltd. should not be deleted. Without affording any reasonable opportunity to the appellant for explaining the aforesaid two items, the AO passed the assessment order u/s.143(3) on the very same day i.e. 22/03/2013, determining the total income at Rs. 79,86,860/- as against returned income of Rs. 67,45,820/-. In the said order, the AO has m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Due Date Payment Date 1. April' 2009 48979 20.05.2009 22.09.2009 2. May' 2009 51330 20.06.2009 22.09.2009 3. June' 2009 53000 20.07.2009 22.09.2009 4. July' 2009 57151 20.08.2009 01.10.2009 5. August' 2009 76977 20.09.2009 Total 287477 5.1 Since the payments of employees' contribution to PF was not remitted within due date or the grace period as extended under the relevant Act. Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court had decided this kind of ground against the assessee in the matter of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation; relevant Para of the same is reproduced here as under: "Section 43B, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat Assessee Company has made cash payment of Rs. 24,220/- to Shri Katilal Zaveri on 07/11/2009. Thereafter, AO issued the show-cause notice as to why expenses of Rs. 24,220/- made towards misc. expenses should not be disallowed as the same was not paid by account payee cheque or draft. Reply filed by assessee could not convince the authorities below. Hence, an amount of Rs. 24,220/- was confirmed. 6.1 We have gone through the relevant record and impugned order. We are not convinced with the reply of the assessee that payment of Kantilal Zaveri made in exceptional circumstances is not convincible as appellant has not clarified that how exceptional circumstances were there at the time of making cash payment of Rs. 24,220/-. Therefore, we ....