TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 36
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sment year 2011-12. Before us the assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in making disallowance of Rs. 2,88,976/- relating to PF & ESIC contribution under sec.2(24)(x) of Income Tax Act, 1961. The disallowance is unjustified, unwarranted and uncalled for. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in addition of Rs. 13,29,277/- on account of inadmissible expenses u/s14A r.w.r.8D. The disallowance is unjustified, unwarranted and uncalled for. 3. The assesee reserves the right, to add, amend or alter any grounds of appeal at any time of hearing." 2. Contr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t that the assessee had made investment of Rs. 1,29,24,000/- in unquoted shares of Chhattisgarh Captive Coal Mining Limited, a joint venture company, thus, called upon the assesee to explain as to why corresponding expenditures may not be disallowed by triggering the provisions of section 14A r.w.r.8D. As the reply filed by the assessee did not find favor with the Assessing Officer, therefore, he worked out the disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r.8D at Rs. 13,29,277/-. 7. Before us, it was submitted by the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short 'AR') that as the assessee has not earned any exempt dividend income during the year under consideration, therefore, no part of the expenditure in question could have been disallowed u/s.14A of the Act. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee's claim for deduction of the employees share of contribution towards PF of Rs. 2,88,976/-, we find that the same had been disallowed by the Assessing Officer u/s.2(24)(x) of the Act, for the reason that the said amount was deposited beyond the stipulated time period that was prescribed under the said Employees Welfare Fund Act. Before us, it was claimed by the Ld. AR, that now when the aforesaid amounts were deposited by the assessee before the "due date" of filing of its return of income for the year under consideration, therefore, the same were allowable as a deduction u/s.43B of the Act. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the lower authorities had misconceived the settled position of law and disallowed the aforementioned amounts, des....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y Mills (P) Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 167 (P&H) c. Bihar State Warehousing Corporation Ltd.Vs. CIT 386 ITR 410 (Patna) d. Sagun Foundary Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT 145 DTR 265 (All) e. CIT Vs. Mark Auto Industries (2008) 358 ITR 43 (P&H) f. CIt Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd (2014) 363 ITR 307 (Raj) g. EssaeTeraoka Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (2014)366 ITR 408 (Kar) h. CIT Vs. Vijay Shree Ltd (2014) 43 Taxmann.com 396 (Cal) i. CIT Vs. Kichha Sugar Co Ltd (2013) 356 ITR 351 (Uttarakhand) In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law, we are of the considered view that no distinction is to be drawn between the employers as well as employees contribution to PF and ESI, as both are covered ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rved that the judgments and orders relied upon by the assessee have been rendered before the clarificatory amendments made in the Finance Act, 2021 and the Finance Act, 2021 has put an end to this controversy. 5.2 Admittedly there is plethora of judgments in favour of the Assessee's contention and of the Revenue. The controversy with regard to divergent views of different High Courts, has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Vegetables Products Ltd. (88 ITR 192) by laying the dictum that if two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible that construction which favours the Assessee must be adopted. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s HemlaEmbroidery Mill....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s by the Finance Act, 2021 and clearly held that the amendment shall be applicable from 1st April, 2021 onwards . It is also relevant to note that the CBDT has also issued Memorandum of Explanation qua applicability of the amended provisions of Section 36(1)(va) & 43B of the Act w.e.f. 1st April, 2021, and Assessment Year 2021-21 onwards, hence there is no doubt qua applicability of the amended provisions referred above, prospectively. On the aforesaid discussion, the second aspect as considered/determined by the ld. CIT(A) qua retrospective application of the amended provisions of Section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act wherein Explanations have been inserted by Finance Act, 2021 qua employees' share in respect of PF & ESI Act, is al....