2018 (7) TMI 2117

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on 36(1)(va) made by the ITO Ward 1(1), Bhubaneswar in computing the business income of the assessee is arbitrary to law and the facts of the case." 3. The facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has not deposited an amount of Rs. 43,66,585/- towards employees contribution to PF and Rs. 8,53,870/- towards employee's contribution to ESI u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act within the prescribed under the respective Act and, therefore, made addition of Rs. 52,20,455/- to the income of the assessee. 4. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer following the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, 366 ITR 170(Guj) and the CBDT Circular N....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eposited on or before due date of filing of returns, same could not be disallowed under section 43B or under section 36(1)(va)- Whether SLP against said impugned order was to be dismissed-Held yes (para 2) in favour of assessee. 10. Respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Beverage Corporation Ltd., (supra), we delete the addition of Rs. 52,20,455/- made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) and allow this ground of appeal of the assessee. 11. Ground No.2 of appeal reads as under: "2. The order of the CIT(A) confirming the addition of rent paid amounting to Rs. 3,78,000/- without deduction of TDS u/s.40(a)(ia) is not justified and bad in law." 12. The brief facts ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....disallowance should be made. With these directions, the issue is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer to re-adjudicate the issue. Hence, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 17. Ground No.3 of appeal reads as under: "The order of the CIT(A) confirming the addition of differential amount of receipts as per 26AS and as per profit and loss account amounting to Rs. 1,89,971/- is not justified and not correct." 18. The Assessing Officer, on verification of details of the receipts disclosed by the assessee in the accounts with the details of receipts disclosed in 26AS statement, found that receipts to the extent of Rs. 1,89,971/- have not been disclosed by the assessee and, therefore, same was treated as u....