TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 1732
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....13. Shri Vijayendra Kumar Ld. Departmental Representative represented on behalf of Revenue and Shri A.K. Tulsian, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of assessee. 2. Facts in brief are that assessee in the present case is a Limited Company and engaged in business of extraction of minerals and other mining activities. The assessee in the year under consideration filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.24,23,54,360/- comprising of income under the head "business". A search and seizure operation was conducted at the residential and business premises of assessee on 19.09.2011. Thereafter case was selected under scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2)/142(1) of the Act were duly served upon assessee. The assessment was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellate proceedings the AR has filed a written submission. I have considered the finding of the AO on this issue in the assessment order and the written submission filed by the AR. In the assessment order the AO has disallowed under rule 8D(2)(iii) of Rs. 91,55,500/-. Here the important thing is that the assessee has categorically declared that investment of Rs. 276,59,00,000/- has not yielded any dividend/exempted income. Therefore in my opinion, as the assessee has not earned any exempted income during the year under consideration, therefore respectfully following the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal in the case of M/s Compact Finstock Pvt Ltd (supra), assessee's appeal on ground no 1 is allowed." Being aggri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der the respective Act. However, there is no dispute that the amount of PF and ESI were paid within due dates of filing of IT return in the year under consideration. We find that issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee and against the Revenue as contribution were made within due date of filing IT return as observed by Ld. CIT(A) in his order. While doing so, we find support and guidance from the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. M/s Vijay Shree Ltd. in ITA No. 1091/Kol/2010 for AY 2006-07, wherein it was held that the "employees' contribution" made towards PF before the due date of filing of return is allowable business expenditure. The above view was also upheld by the Hon'ble jurisdictional ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is warranted. After considering the submissions of assessee, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by AO by observing as under:- "5. Appeal on ground no 2 is against the addition of Rs. 26,04,701/- u/s 36(1)(va) for delayed payment of PF in government account. I have considered the finding of the AO in the assessment order and the written submission fled by the AR during the appellate proceedings. I think as the payment in government account has been made before the due date of the filing of the return, therefore respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Coal India Ltd (supra) and ITAT Kolkata bench decision in the case of ACIT vs. M/s Vijayshree Ltd (supra), assessee's appeal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....milarly the Honourable ITAT in the case of REI Agro Limited v. DCIT reported in 144 ITD 141 has allowed the issue in favour of assessee by observing as under : "8. In respect of provisions of rule 8D(2)(iii), which is the subject-matter of the appeal in the assessee's hand, a perusal of the said provision shows that what is disallowable under rule 8D(2)(iii) is the amount equal to ½ percentage of the average value of investment the income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income. Thus, under sub-clause (iii), what is disallowed is ½ percentage of the numerator B in rule 8D(2)(ii). Again this is to be calculated in the same line as mentioned earlier in respect of Numerator B in rule 8D(2)(ii) of t....