AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 535
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ignoring the fact that the work of printing was not carried out at the premises of the assessee in the notified area for the purpose of Section 80IC of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 6,04,45,025/- for not deducting the tax at source on commission payment made to M/s S.Chand & Company Pvt. Ltd. under the guise of 'Trade Discount'. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) is justified in holding that the employees' contribution to the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) which is deemed as the employees' income u/s. 2(24)(X) of the Act and which is subject to deduction u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act is also governed by Section 43B of the Act? 5. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law? 6. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or forgo any ground(s) of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal? 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its ereturn of income at Rs. 8,31,960/- on 27.9.2011. The Assessee ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....out of which certain payments aggregating to amount of Rs. 1,11,811/- were made beyond the due date as per the relevant statute. The AO did not accept the plea of the assessee that such payments were made before the due date for filing the return of income and in which regard it placed reliance on the decisions in the case of CIT vs. Vinay Cement Ltd. (2007) 213 CTR CTR (SC) 268 and CIT vs. Aimil Ltd. (321 ITR 508 Del.) and made the addition u/s. 2(24)x r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 13,43,02,685/- by making various additions as discussed above u/s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 31.12.2013. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 29.1.2016 has deleted the additions by allowing the appeal of the assessee. Against the impugned order dated 29.1.2016, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Ld. DR relied upon the Order of the AO and stated that Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly deleted the addition of Rs. 7,28,63,013/- u/s. 80IC by ignoring the fact that the work of printing was not carried out at the premises of the assessee in the notified area fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cle manufactured is specified as "Paper Products" while assessee has claimed to be involved in business of printing and publishing of books. The observations have been made by auditor after careful examination of various vouchers, bills and other documents. (Page 16 of AO) 6. The assessee bought some plant and machinery from M/s Rajindra Ravindra Printers Pvt Ltd, a related party. 7. There is addition to new machines which have been put to use in last month of financial year. "Ten Clamp Perfect Binding Machine" was put to use on 10.03.2011 8. Assessee has claimed expenses of Rs. 18,49,380/- for job work of book binding by Sh Rajesh Kumar. However, notice u/s 133(6) issued to Sh Rajesh Kumar returned back unserved. In view of above facts, deduction u/s 80IC is not allowable to assessee. Addition of Rs. 6,04,45.025/- u/s 40(a)(ia) The assessee has not deducted TDS on payment made to related concern of the assessee namely M/s S. Chand & Company and hence Addition of Rs. 6,04,45,025/- u/s 40(a)(ia) has rightly been made by the AO." 5. Ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that he has pass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cturing activity of the assessee may have been outsourced or the assessee may be carrying out job work for others, does not debar the appeal and to claim deduction if it had manufactured an entirely new product. It is noted that Mr. Rajesh Kumar was engaged as contractor to provide man power to carry out binding work at the premises of the assessee using the machines of the assessee. It is noted that notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act to him returned unserved due to his incomplete address mentioned on the envelop and on the notice. Further, the same was not confronted to the assessee during the assessment proceedings. The assessee filed his confirmation during appellate proceedings on which no adverse comment was given by the AO in the remand report. The difference in the value of machinery in the bill and the Form 16 has no bearing on the deduction claimed u/s 80IC of the Act. The only thing required to be proved that the machinery was transported to Rudrapur and used there. The assessee produced evidences to prove this fact on which no adverse observation was given by the AO in the remand report. The assessee's explanation regarding the 'cartage' being included in the other expe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e did not actually carry out any operation at the premise of the eligible undertaking. AS the issue has been independently examined on merit and the assessee's claim of deduction u/s. 80IC in respect of publishing activity carried out from the premise of the eligible undertaking is found to be genuine, based on facts substantiated by relevant evidences, which have not been refuted by the AO in the remand report, hence, the assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80IC was rightly held as fully allowable and accordingly the assessee get full relief on this ground, which does not need any interference on our part, therefore, we uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and reject the ground raised by the Revenue. However, The judicial decisions relied upon by the Ld. CIT(DR) have been duly considered. In our considered view, we do not find any parity in the facts of the decisions relied upon with the peculiar facts of the case in hand. 6.1 With regard to disallowance of Trade discount of Rs. 6,04,45,025/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is concerned, we find that the assessee sold the books to M/s S. Chand & Co. (P) Ltd., its 100% holding company @ 50% of the printed price....