2018 (7) TMI 2100

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1,327/- received by the assessee under Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme of the Government of India is capital receipt and not a revenue receipt." 2. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,22,706/-made by the AO u/s 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(l)(va) even though the assessee has not paid the employees' contribution to the Provident Fund within the time allowed under the P.F. Act." 3. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, in our considered opinion, the issue can be adjudicated by hearing the ld. Departmental Representative and perusing the records. Apropos ground no.1: 4. In this issue,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) vi. CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers [2013] 351 ITR 309 (Bombay High Court) vii. CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd [2011] 339 ITR 632 (Bombay High Court) After going through the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, I find that the ratio of issue in the present case is similar to that of Chaphalkar Brothers wherein the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay, has pronounced that the subsidy provided by the government to the assessee was in the nature of capital receipt Further, I find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Sham Lal Bansal 200 Taxman 14 [2011] and Hon'ble Tribunal (Kolkata Bench) in DCIT vs. Gloste....