TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 581
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A.Y. 2011-12 in the case of appellant by confirming the disallowances made in the assessment order. 2. The Ld CIT Appeals has erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 14,13,428/- on account of design expenses. The CIT(A) has wrongly stated that the appellant has himself stated that the services rendered by the non-resident are in the nature of included services. We had clearly denied making any such claim in our submission. 3. The Ld CIT Appeals has erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of Rs. 3,94,192/- out of provident fund expenses. 4. The Ld CIT Appeals has erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of Rs. 1,08,000/- out of scholarship expenses. 5. The appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 40(a)(i) of the Act on account of non-deduction of TDS u/s. 195 of the Act. 5. The assessee filed appeal against the order of Ld. AO. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the payee was located in Poland and did not have any PE in India. Further, all details regarding the payment were submitted to the A.O. vide letter dated 21-02-2014 and further clarified vide letter dated 19-03-2014. Therefore, the ld. A.O. was factually incorrect in writing that the appellant has not furnished the proof of payment to nonresident. The assessee further submitted that the payments were made for the purpose of purchasing designs and A.O. is wrong in presuming that it was in the nature of technical services. The A.O. has also wrongly stated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the ground of appeal of the assessee. 7. Before us none appeared on behalf of the assessee. We have perused the material on record and orders of lower authorities. From the various submissions filed by the assessee, it is observed that assessee has always maintained before Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) that payments made are for 'purchase' of designs and hence do not qualify as 'fee for included services', but both the Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) have reiterated that assessee has himself stated that services rendered by the non-resident are in the nature of 'fee for included services'. However, from the submissions of assessee, no such concession has been noticed. Secondly, Ld. CIT(A) in the order has noted that the order of Ld. CIT(A)-1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....due dates. Accordingly, the Ld. AO treated the same as income of the assessee(employer) as per the provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act by placing reliance on the Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corp 366 ITR 170 (Guj), where it has been held that PF/ESI contribution is not covered by S. 43B of the Act and is allowable as a deduction u/s 36(1)(va) if paid within the "due date" prescribed therein. The Ld. CITA(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by noting that the issue is covered against the appellant by decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corp 366 ITR 170 (Guj). and upheld the disallowance made by the Ld. AO. 10.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder the Provident Fund Act and/or in the ESI Fund under the ESI Act." Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the above case, we dismiss the Ground No. 3 of the appeal of the assessee. 11. In the result, Ground No. 3 of the assessee's appeal is dismissed. Ground No. 4: Disallowance of Rs. 1,08,000/- out of scholarship expenses: 12. The brief facts in relation to the ground of appeal are that during assessment, ld. A.O. found that assessee debited scholarship expenditure of Rs. 1,08,000/- under the head " Miscellaneous Expenses". The ld. AO observed that assessee has made payment on account of scholarship fee of Anurag Ramavatar Agrawal, a related party. The ld. A.O. disallowed the expenditure on....