TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 698
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore the due date of filing of return of income. Similarly, the assessee has remitted the contribution towards ESI amounting to Rs. 3,80,215/- belatedly. However, both the contributions i.e., employees contribution of PF as well as the ESI were remitted to the concerned accounts before the due date of filing of returns of income u/s 139(1) of the act. The AO viewed that as the amounts were paid into the respective accounts belatedly beyond the due date specified under the provisions of the respective statutes, the AO made the addition to the returned income of the assessee. 3.2. Against the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) in his detailed order, confirmed the addition made by the AO, holding that the assessee having not remitted the contribution to the respective accounts before the due dates specified under the Act, the same are not allowable deductions u/s.43B of the Act. Hene, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal, against the order of Ld.CIT(A). 3.3. During the appeal hearing, Ld.AR argued that the assessee has remitted the contributions to the respective accounts before the due date of filing the return, ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e afore said, we delete the addition of Rs. 2,07,209". 3.5.1. Similarly, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Rajastan Beverages Corporation Ltd., (2017) [84 taxmann.com 173] held that no disallowance can be made in respect of PF and ESI u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act, if the same are deposited on or before the due date of filing the return of income. For the sake clarity and convenience we extract relevant part of the order of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High as under: "5. So far as the question relating to privilege fees amounting to Rs. 26.00 Crores in the instant year as well as the deduction of claim of Rs. 17,80,765/- on account of Provident Fund (PF) and ESI is concerned, this Court has extensively considered the aforesaid two questions in assessee's own case vide judgment and order dt.26.05.2016 referred to (supra) and has held that the privilege fees being a revenue expenditure, is required to be allowed as a revenue expenditure. This court in the aforesaid case has also allowed the claim of the assessee, in so far as payment of PF & ESI etc. is concerned, on the finding of fact that the amounts in question were deposited on or before the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submitted that the assessee has shown separate Profit and Loss A/c before lower authorities, allocating the expenditure towards various units, relating to the activities carried on by the assessee. The assessee also filed the Paper Book, furnishing division-wise Profit and Loss A/c in page Nos.16 and 17 of the Paper Book as per which the assessee furnished the income and the expenditure details, head-wise and the unit wise. The Ld.AR further submitted that the assessee is maintaining the separate books of account for each unit and the income and expenditure was duly accounted unit wise, hence, argued that there is no requirement to make the estimated disallowance. Ld.AR argued that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition. Hence, requested to set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and allow the appeal of assessee. 5.4. On the other hand, the Ld.DR supporting the orders of lower authorities vehemently argued that the CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition made by the AO, hence, requested to uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 5.5. We have heard both the parties and gone through the material placed on record. As seen from Pgs.16 & 17 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rward loss, the same to be set-off in accordance with the provisions of Section 72 of the Act and the balance would be eligible for deduction u/s.10A of the Act, as per the provisions of Chapter-VIA. If after aggregation of income in accordance with the provisions of Section 70 and 71 of the Act, the resultant amount is loss from eligible unit, it shall be eligible for carry forward and set-off in accordance with the provisions of Section 72 of the Act. Similarly, if there is loss from an eligible unit, it shall be carried forward and may be set-off against the profits of eligible unit or in-eligible unit as the case may be in accordance with the provisions of Section 72 of the Act. Since in this case, after giving effect to the provisions of Section 70 and 71 of the Act, it resulted in loss, the Ld.CIT(A) held that no deduction is allowable u/s.10A of the Act. 6.3. Against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal and argued that in the instance case, there was profit in the eligible unit and by following the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Yokogawa India Ltd., [77 taxmann.com 41], argued that assessee is eligible for d....