TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 851
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS, addition of Rs. 38,307/- on account of disallowance made u/s. 36(1) (va) of the Act for not depositing the employee's contribution welfare funds before the due date and addition of Rs. 20,973/- on account of disallowance u/s. 14 A of the Act. However, after allowing set off the unabsorbed depreciation for the AY 2008-09 and 2009-10 income of the assessee was computed as nil. The assessee challenged the assessment order before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after hearing the assessee set aside the assessment order and deleted the additions. Against the said findings of the Ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The Revenue has challenged the impugned order on the following effective grounds:- i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has not erred in allowing appeal of the assessee without appreciating the facts of the case. (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has not erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee and deleting the addition of Rs. 2,06,81,641/- despite the fact that the assessee failed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed out before us that the assessee had paid export commission amounting to Rs. 2,06,81,641/- to non-residents, however, did not deduct the tax at source. The ld. DR further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition ignoring the fact that since the income had accrued in India the assessee was required to deduct tax at source under the provisions of the Act. The payments were made on the basis of contract entered into by the assessee company with the commission agents. Hence, the commission received by the non-residents is deemed income in India. Since the assessee has failed to comply with the provisions of section 195 of the Act, the ld. CIT(A) has wrongly deleted the addition made by the AO under the provisions of section 40 (a)(i) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source. Accordingly, the ld. DR submitted that the impugned order may be set aside. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the ITAT Chandigarh in the case of IDS Infotech Limited (2016) 69 taxman.com 393 and since the Ld. CIT(A) has decided this issue by following the decision of the jurisdictional Tribun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 8. As pointed by the Ld. counsel, this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the ITAT in the case of IDS Infotech Ltd. (supra) and the findings of the ld. CIT(A) are in accordance with the decision of Tribunal. Further, the ld. CIT(A) has followed the decision of the CIT(A) Gurgaon in the assessee's own case for the A.Y. 2012-13 and his predecessor, CIT(A) Chandigarh-2 in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2013-14. Since the Ld. CIT(A) has decided this issue in favour of the assessee by following the decision of the ITAT, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, we dismiss this ground of appeal of the Revenue and uphold the findings of the ld. CIT(A). 9. Vide ground No. (iii), the Revenue has challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition made u/s. 36(1) (va) of the Act on account of employees share paid after due date. The ld. DR submitted before us that since the assessee company had not deposited the employee's contribution to welfare funds before the due date, the ld. CIT(A) has wrongly deleted the addition made by the AO. 10. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jab & Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Mark Auto Industries Ltd. 358 ITR 43 (P&H). Since in the present case the assessee has deposited the ESI/PF before the due date of filing of the return, respectfully following the decision of Mark Auto Industries (supra) the addition made by the AO is deleted. Ground of appeal no. 2 is allowed." 12. Since this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgement of the Hon'ble Court High Court and the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal discussed above, we do not find any infirmity in the findings of the ld. CIT(A). We, therefore, dismiss this ground of appeal of the Revenue and uphold the findings of the ld. CIT(A). 13. Vide ground No. (iv), (v) and (vi) the Revenue has challenged the action of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 20,973/- made u/s. 14A of the Act. The ld. DR submitted before us that the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition made u/s. 14A of the Act in violation of the provisions of Act and the various judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court. Since the assessee had invested in the shares of Shivalik Solid Waste Management Ltd. and had not made any sue mot....