TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 218
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee read as under: 1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is against law and facts. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 13,02,518/- on account of delay in depositing provident fund contribution of employees. Your appellant submits that the disallowance is not justified and prays that the same be deleted. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 4,44,263/- under section 14A of the Act. Your appellant submits that the disallowance is not justified and prays that the same be deleted. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming part disallowance of various expenses to the extent of 10% such disallowance amounting to Rs. 1,44,961/-. Your appellant submits that the disallowance is not justified and prays that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t assessee has debited various expenses in its profit and loss account, consisting of sale promotion, business promotion, office expenses, misc. expenses, conveyance and labour expenses. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish the bills, vouchers, payment receipts and supporting evidence. On furnishing of such details and evidences by assessee the Assessing Officer found that supporting vouchers were not proper by the assessee. The Assessing Officer for the lack of proper verification disallowed 15% of total expenses of Rs. 14,49,619/- of 15% which worked out to Rs. 2,17,443/-. 4. On appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee challenged all three additions/disallowance. During first appellate stage, the ground with regard to disall....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... disallowance is not justified. The Ld. AR in alternative submission the salary of employees are disbursed generally 7th and 10th of succeeding month. The dates of deposit of contribution are computed as 15 days from the end of the month to which the salary relates and not from the end of the month in which it is actually paid. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Shri Sandeep Subhash Nanavati v. DCIT (ITA No. 1362/AHD/2017) dated 14.02.2020 held that due date to be considered relevant for making payment of contribution has to be seen not with reference to the relevant months relatable to wages/salary but month of its actual disbursement. On the basis of aforesaid submission, the Ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the addition was not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case and the prayer made by Ld. A.R. of the assessee, we deem it appropriate to restore this grounds of appeal raised by the assessee and restore that the issue to the file of Ld. CIT(A). The assessee is given liberty to raise all factual and legal submission before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A). is directed to grant reasonable opportunity to the assessee before passing the order in accordance with law without being influenced by our observation. The Ld. AR of the assessee is also directed to provide complete detail and information to the Ld. CIT(A). 9. In the result, the ground No. 2 is allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Ground No. 3 relates to disallowance under section 14A. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that during the relevant pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt) * Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. 37 taxmann.com 254 (Gujarat High Court) * Amod Stamping (P.) Ltd. 45 taxmann.com 427 Gujarat High Court * Torrent Power Ltd. 222 Taxman 367 (Gujarat High Court) * Raghuvir Synthetics Ltd. 394 ITR 222 (Gujarat High Court) * The DCIT v. Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. (ITA No. 1185/Ahd/2007, 1246/Ahd/2007, 543 & 1324/Ahd/2008, 1324/Ahd/2008 Ahmedabad Bench of ITAT). 11. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. 12. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties. We find that during the assessment, in reply to the show cause notice, the assessee specifically contended that no exempt income earned during t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vely for the purpose of business. The Assessing Officer disallowed 15% of the expenses by taking view that all expenditure are not fully supported by bills and vouchers, therefore, not verifiable. The Ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 10%. However, the Ld. CIT(A), while restricting the disallowances to 10%, noted the Assessing Officer has not found any single instances or nor verified before making ad-hoc disallowance. The Ld. AR prayed for relating the entire disallowances to support its contention. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co. v. CIT (2002) 253 ITR 749 (Guj). 15. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR submits t....