TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 2079
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... referred to as CIT(A)]. 2. Since the facts and issue involved in all these appeals are identical, hence, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. ITA No. 431/Chd/2017 for assessment year 2010-11 is taken as a lead case. ITA No. 431/Chd/2017 (A.Y. 2010-11) 3. The Revenue in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal:- 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 29,27,987/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 36(l)(va) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 and in not appreciating the fact that section 36(1 )(va) is related to employees' contribution and section 43B is r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7/-. The Assessing officer made the impugned disallowance as he found that assessee had not deposited the Employees Contribution to EPF, ESI and labour welfare fund within the prescribed due date although the payment was made before the due date of filing of the return. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the said disallowance while relying upon the various case laws including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd.' (2009) 185 taxman 416 / 319 ITR 306 (SC). 5. After hearing the Ld. representatives of the parties, we noted that the Ld. CIT(A) inter alia has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of 'CIT Vs. Hernia Embroidery Mills (P) Ltd.' (20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ein, the Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee has given a categorical finding that the assessee had used his own funds for making investments in the shares of the sister concern. The Ld. CIT(A) considering the submissions held that no interest disallowance under Rule 8D (2)(ii) was warranted, however, he upheld the disallowance on account of administrative expenditure u/s 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules. 8. After going through the impugned order of the CIT(A), we do not find any infirmity in the same. Even otherwise, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the total disallowance made during the year u/s 14A read with rule 8D(2)(iii) has exceeded the total dividend income earned by the assessee durin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ating the interest of Rs. 59,06,706/- to the cost of shares under section 48(ii) of the act. (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 59,14,030/-- made by the Assessing Officer under section 36(l)(va) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 and in not appreciating the fact that section 36(1 )(va) is related to employees' contribution and section 43B is related to employer's contribution and due date for crediting the employees' contribution has been clearly defined in Explanation given below section 36(l)(va) of the Act. (iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....36(i)(iii) of Rs. 59,06,706/- which has been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) observing that assessee had made investment in shares of its sister concern out of his own funds and that no borrowed funds were used for making such investment. We have gone through the paras 7.2 & 7.3 of the impugned order of the CIT(A) and do not find any reason to interfere in the well-reasoned order of the CIT(A) on this issue. The findings of the CIT(A) on this issue are upheld. 13. Ground Nos. (iii) to (v) : These grounds are similar to that of the ground Nos. (i) to (iii) of the Revenue appeal for assessment year 2010-11 in in ITA No. 431/Chd/2017 (above). In view of our findings given above while deciding the issue taken by the Revenue vide ground Nos. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l)(va) of the Act. (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not taking into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT-II vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (ITA No. 637 of 2013) and Circular No. 22/2015 dated 17-12-2015 while allowing relief to the assesses. (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 26,79,668/- made on account of disallowance of Bank Charges. (iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in restricting t....