TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 640
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ses two issues viz. (i) the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 11,14,726/- by holding that the same was not deposited in the relevant fund on or before the due date, and (ii) the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming action of the AO in invoking section 35DD of the Act and thereby disallowing an amount of Rs. 4,26,968/- out of expenditure on consultancy and legal fees. 3. Brief facts of the case in this regard are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of contract sales and market and trading in pharmaceutical products. It has filed return under section 139(1) of the Act declaring total loss of Rs.(-)20,95,42,163/- which was thereafter taken for scrutiny assessment by issuance of notice under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....CIT(A). Assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 4. After hearing both the sides on the issue, and going through the written submissions filed by the assessee, we find that this issue has been settled by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court on two occasions, viz. in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. (supra) and M/s.Checkmate Facility & Electronics Solutions P.Ltd. Vs. DCIT, wherein it is held that the employees' contribution to the Employees' Provident Fund (EPF)/ Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) deposited beyond the due date prescribed under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 would not be eligible for deduction under section 43B of the Act, even if deposited before the due date o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Amalgamation of MRPL with MIP" and "Lawyers' fees for Merger" which itself explains that the said expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of amalgamation or demerger of an undertaking, and therefore section 35D is applicable. Accordingly, the ld.AO applied provision of section 35DD and allowed an amount of Rs. 1,96,630/- being 1/5th of total expenditure, and balance amount of Rs. 3,37,080/- was disallowed. Aggrieved by the action of the AO, the assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT(A), who however upheld the order of the AO. Still aggrieved, the assessee is now before the Tribunal. 7. Before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, the assessee has filed written submissions. The pleadings therein a....