TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 1454
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 23.03.2020, which thereafter was from time to time modified vide further order(s) dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021, 23.09.2021 and 10.01.2022, therefore, we admit the same. 3. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No.91/RPR/2020 for A.Y.2012-13 wherein the impugned order has been assailed on the following grounds of appeal before us: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,36,688/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance out of festival expenses, gift expenses and puja expenses. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,08,17,711/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance u/s.14A of the Income Tax Act r.w.r.8D of the Income Tax Rules. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition of Rs.1,18,63,401/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act r.w.r.8D of the Income Tax Rules. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in dele....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....artment had in its grounds of appeal wrongly stated that the entire amount of disallowance was vacated by the CIT(Appeals). 10. Ld. DR has assailed before us the order of the CIT(Appeals) on the ground that he had wrongly vacated the disallowances made by the AO, viz. (i) festival expenses: Rs.87,033/-; and (ii) gift expenses: Rs.46,470/-. 11. The ld. AR controverted the aforesaid contention of the department. It was submitted by the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short 'AR') for the assessee company that as the expenses incurred towards festival expenses and for giving gifts, distribution of sweets to staff etc. were incurred for maintaining good relations with its employees, customers etc., and for the purpose of smooth running of its business, thus the same were rightly claimed by the assessee company as a deduction u/s 37 of the Act. Ld. AR in support of her aforesaid contention had relied on the order of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. Gowawari Power and Ispat Ltd. (2022) 193 ITD 869 (Raipur). 12. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the issue in hand, we find that the CIT(Appeals), had observed, that the aforesaid expenses claimed by the assessee compa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refore, following the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the preceding assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Id. CIT(A). Accordingly, the same is upheld and the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed." We, thus, finding no infirmity in the aforesaid view taken by the CIT(Appeals) wherein he had vacated the disallowance of the assessee's claim for deduction of the aforesaid expenses, viz. (i) festival expenses: Rs.87,033/-; and (ii) gift expenses: Rs.46,470/-, uphold the same. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.1 raised by the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. (B). Re : Dissallowance u/s 14A r.w Rule 8D: Rs. 1,08,17,711/- 13. The AO while framing the assessment, observed that as the assessee company had failed to furnish necessary details/documents to substantiate that its investment of Rs.18,46,07,555/- in exempt dividend income yielding unquoted shares of various companies was made out of its own funds and not from interest bearing funds, thus disallowed its claim for deduction of interest expenses of Rs.1,08,17,711/- u/s 14A r.w Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income-tax Rules,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (iv) South Indian Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT (2021) 438 ITR 1 (SC) 17. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue in hand, and find that the CIT(Appeals) had categorically observed that the facts and figures which were narrated in the assessee's balance sheet revealed, viz. (i) that its interest bearing funds were utilized for no other purpose other than the business of the assessee company; and (ii). that the investments in the exempt income yielding shares were made by the assessee company from its own funds. On a perusal of the records, it transpires, that as observed by the CIT(Appeals) and, rightly so, the assessee company had substantial interest free funds aggregating to Rs. 56.83 crore, i.e share capital of Rs.41 crore and reserves and surplus of Rs.15.83 crore which were more than the investments made by the assessee company in exempt dividend income yielding unquoted equity shares. However, we find that a perversity had crept in the order of the CIT(Appeals) while observing that the assessee company had not earned any exempt income during the year. We, say so, for the reason that as observed by us hereinabove, a perusal of the profit & loss a/c a/w return of income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant company and investments have been made from own funds whose sufficiency can be seen from the balance sheet. Moreover, no exempt income has been claimed and no expenses on the said income has been claimed. The disallowance u/s.14A read with rule 8D is unwarranted hence deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed." In our considered view as observed by the CIT(Appeals) and, rightly so, now when the assessee company had substantial interest free funds available with it to justify the investments made in the exempt dividend income yielding unquoted equity shares, therefore, no disallowance of any part of its claim for deduction of interest expenditure was called for u/s 14A r.w Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income tax Rules, 1963. Our aforesaid view is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of HDFC Bank Vs. DCIT (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom.), wherein it was held that no disallowance u/s.14A can be made in respect of interest paid on borrowings if assessee's own funds and non-interest-bearing funds exceeded the amount of investments in tax free securities. We, thus, finding no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(Appeals), uphold the same. Thus, the Gr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... vs ACIT in ITA No. 404/Ctk./201 1 dt. 17.11.2011; (2011) 30 CCH 578 (Cuttack) (Trib.) (vi) Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board vs ITO (2012) 143 TTJ 151 (Mum.) in ITA No. 20 to 23/BLPR/2010 (vii) DCIT vs Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. (2017) 50 CCH 78 (Mum. Trib.) ITA No. 1422/Mum/2015 and 1480/Mum/2015 dt. 02.06.2017. (viii) ITO vs Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (2013) 37 CCH 522 (Jodh. Trib.); ITA No. 488 to 491/Jodh/2010 dt. 30.08.2013. 22. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue in hand in the backdrop of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements as well as the observations of the CIT(Appeals). As observed by us hereinabove, the CIT(Appeals) after relying on a plethora of judicial pronouncements, had observed that as no obligation was cast upon the assessee company to deduct tax at source on the transmission/wheeling charges under Section 194C or 194-I or u/s.194J of the Act, therefore, no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act on the said count could have been made in its hands. For the sake of clarity the observations of the CIT(Appeals) are culled out as under: "I have considered the grounds of appeal, gone through the submissions of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat no TDS can be made out of transmission charges. It was just a service obtained from the govt. electricity company which had got infrastructure in the form of equipment and transmission lines and hence section 194-I was not applicable for transmission and wheeling charges. Similarly in the case of Bangalore Electricity Supply Company vs ITO(TDS) which the counsels have placed reliance on, the issue was payment by the assessee to State Load Dispatch Centre (SLDC) and it was held that no deduction could be made for such charges. In case of CIT(TDS) v Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd reported in 58 taxmann.com 339 the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay held that the wheeling charges would neither be rent nor fees for technical services. The SLP preferred against the impugned decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court with respect to wheeling charges being tax deductible payments u/s 194-I and 194J was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)-1 Mumbai v Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd (2016) 242 taxman 369 (SC). Thus on the above facts and judicial pronouncements the disallowances m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s made the payments for transmission of electricity in which transmission lines have been used rather than for the use of transmission lines per se. The payments could be said to have been made for "the use of transmission lines" in a case in which the object of consideration for which payments are made was the use of transmission lines simplictor , and such a use by the assessee does not extend beyond the transmission of electricity through such lines in the sense that the same transmission lines continue to be in the control of PGCIL for transmission of electricity for other entities and for all practical purposes. Even as electricity purchased by the assessee is transmitted to the assessee from the NTPC busbar to its landing points, the same transmission lines continue to be engaged in similar transmission of electricity for other entities and the assessee has no say in the manner in which such transmission lines can be controlled and used by the PGCIL. Undoubtedly, for the purpose of an arrangement being termed as in the nature of rent for the purpose of Section 194 I, the 'control' and 'possession', in legal terms, of an asset may not needed to be with the person benefiting fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nation for delivery of the consignment . The lorry is used exclusively for the customer's consignment from the time of loading, to the time of unloading at destination. Can it be said that right to use of the lorry has been transferred by the carrier to the customer? The answer is obviously in the negative, as there is no transfer of the "use of the lorry" for the following reasons : (i) The lorry is never in the control, let alone effective control of the customer; (ii) the carrier decides how, when and where the lorry moves to the destination, and continues to be in effective control of the lorry; (iii) the carrier can at any point (of time or place) transfer the consignment in the lorry to another lorry; or the carrier may unload the consignment en route in any of his godowns, to be picked up later by some other lorry assigned by the carrier for further transportation and delivery at destination. (ii) On the other hand, let us consider the case of a customer (say a factory) entering into a contract with the transport operator, under which the transport operator has to provide a lorry to the customer, between the hours 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. at the customer's factory for its u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ression of Transmission charges and/or Wheeling charges entails distribution of electricity in the area of the Corporation and they could not be subject to provisions of Section 194-I of the Act. Also, we find that similar issue had been adjudicated by the Tribunals in favour of the assessee in the case of GRIDCO Limited Vs. ACIT, ITA No.404/CTK/2011 and that of Noida Power Company Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2018) 52 CCH 196 (Del-Trib). We, thus, on the basis of our aforesaid deliberations, finding no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(Appeals), uphold the same. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.3 raised by the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. (D). Re : Disallowance out of ash handling expenses : Rs. 5,17,200/- 23. It transpires on a perusal of the assessment order that the assessee had debited an amount of Rs.51,71,997/- in its Profit & loss account towards "ash handling expenses". As observed by the AO, as the assessee company could not justify its aforesaid claim of deduction by producing supporting bills, therefore, 10% of the said expenditure was disallowed leading to a consequential addition of Rs. 5,17,200/- in its....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ness of the appellant and have been incurred for business purposes and are recorded in the books of accounts I see no justification for the disallowances, as has been made by the AO. In the case of Ashok Kumar Haria reported in 16 TTJ 493 the tribunal held that just for the absence of vouchers the claims could not be disallowed. Further, in the case of Lahoti Medicare reported in 33 ITC 76 it was held that disallowances of expenses claimed by self made vouchers and defects pointed out were general in nature and such disallowances are to be deleted. The Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Dhakeshwari cotton mills held that "the AO is not entitled to make a pure guess work and make assessment without reference to any evidence or material at all. There must be something more than bare suspicion to support the assessments to be made as per law." In view of the above facts and decisions of the court the disallowances made are not sustainable and deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed." Further, we find that a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Porwal Industries Vs. Income Tax Officer-3(3), ITA No.258/RPR/2017 dated 05.04.2022 had adjudicated an identical issue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m for deduction of the same by the assessee, but then, as observed by us hereinabove, the allowability or not of the same has to be tested as per the mandate of Section 37 of the Act; and not on the touchstone of satisfaction of the "benefit test" as had been done by the A.O in the present case. Backed by our aforesaid observations, we are of the considered view that as the disallowance of the assessee's claim for deduction of commission expenses is not based on any material or observations which would lead to an irrefutable conclusion that the said expenditure was either not genuine or; was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of assessee's business within the meaning of section 37(1) of the Act, therefore, we set-aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and delete the addition of Rs.8,29,120/- (supra) made by the Assessing Officer." We, thus, on the basis of our aforesaid deliberations, finding no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(Appeals), uphold the same. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.4 raised by the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 28. In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No.91/RPR/2020 for A.Y. 2012-13 is dismissed in te....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owed as per the mandate of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court had observed that the employee's share of contribution towards ESI & EPF which was deposited by the assessee beyond the due dates prescribed under the said respective Acts, would by virtue of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act constitute the income of the assessee. It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under: "Analysis and Conclusions 30. The factual narration reveals two diametrically opposed views in regard to the interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament's endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non- obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were expressly conditioned, in certain cases upon payment. In other words, a mere claim of expenditure in the books was insufficient to entitle deduction. The assessee had to, before the prescribed date, actually pay the amounts - be it towards tax liability, interest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., were to be treated as income. The inclusion of a class of receipt, i.e., amounts received (or deducted from the employees) were to be part of the employer/assessee's income. Since these amounts were not receipts that belonged to the assessee, but were held by it, as trustees, as it were, Section 36(1)(va) was inserted specifically to ensure that if these receipts were deposited in the EPF/ESI accounts of the employees concerned, they could be treated as deductions. Section 36(1)(va) was hedged with the condition that the amounts/receipts had to be deposited by the employer, with the EPF/ESI, on or before the due date. The last expression "due date" was dealt with in the explanation as the date by which such amounts had to be credited by the employer, in the concerned enactments such as EPF/ESI Acts. Importantly, such a condition (i.e., depositing the amount on or before the due date) has not been enacted in relation to the employer's contribution (i.e., Section 36(1)(iv)). 33. The significance of this is that Parliament treated contributions under Section 36(1)(va) differently from those under Section 36(1)(iv). The latter (hereinafter, "employers' contribution") is desc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the relevant fund or under the relevant provisions of any law or term of the contract of service or otherwise. (Explanation to Section 36 (1) of the Finance Act) 12.2. In addition, contribution of the employees to the various funds which are deducted by the employer from the salaries and wages of the employees will be taxed as income within brackets insertion of new [clause (x) in clause (24) of Section 2] of the employer, if such contribution is not credited by the employer in the account of the employee in the relevant fund by the due date. Where such income is not chargeable to tax under the head "profits and gains of business or profession" it will be assessed under the head "income from other sources." 36. Significantly, the same Finance Act, 1987 also introduced provisos to Section 43B, through amendment (clause 10 of the Finance Bill). The memorandum explaining the Bill, pertinently states, in relation to second proviso to Section 43B that: "...The second proviso seeks to provide that no deduction shall be allowed in regard to the sum referred to in clause (b) unless such sum has actually been paid during the previous year on or before the due date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... then constituted the Kelkar Committee, to suggest tax reforms. The report suggested amendments inter alia, to Section 43B. The relevant extract of the report is as follows: "In terms of the provisions of section 43B of the Income-tax Act, deduction for statutory payments relating to labour, taxes and State and public financial institutions are allowed as deductions, if they are paid during the financial year. However, under the provisions payment of taxes and interest to State and public financial institution are deemed to have been paid during the financial year even if they are paid by the due date of filing of return. Further if the liability is discharged in the subsequent year after the due date of filing of return, the payment is allowed as a deduction in the subsequent year. In the case of statutory payment relating to labour, the deduction for the payment is disallowed if such payment is made any time after the last date of payment of the about related liability. Trade and industry across the country represented that the delayed payment of statutory liability related to labour should be accorded the same treatment as delayed payment of taxes and interest, i.e. the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with the deduction being allowed irrespective of the previous years in which the liability to pay such sum was incurred by the Assessee according to the method of accounting regularly employed by it. In short, a mercantile system of accounting cannot be looked at when a deduction is claimed under this Section, making it clear that incurring of liability cannot allow for a deduction, but only "actual payment", as contrasted with incurring of a liability, can allow for a deduction." 43. This condition, i.e., of payment of actual amount on or before the due date to enable deduction, continued for 14 years. By the amendment of 2003, the second proviso was deleted. This court interpreted the law, in the light of these developments, in Alom Extrusions. The court considered the effect of omission of the second proviso, and observed as follows: "10. "Income" has been defined under Section 2(24) of the Act to include profits and gains. Under Section 2(24)(x), any sum received by the assessee from his employees as contributions to any provident fund/superannuation fund or any fund set up under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, or any other fund for the welfare of su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Employees' Provident Fund, superannuation fund and other welfare funds on the other. However, the Finance Act, 2003, bringing about this uniformity came into force with effect from 1-4-2004. Therefore, the argument of the assessee(s) is that the Finance Act, 2003, was curative in nature, it was not amendatory and, therefore, it applied retrospectively from 1-4-1988, whereas the argument of the Department was that the Finance Act, 2003, was amendatory and it applied prospectively, particularly when Parliament had expressly made the Finance Act, 2003 applicable only with effect from 1-4-2004. *** 18. However, as stated above, the second proviso resulted in implementation problems, which have been mentioned hereinabove, and which resulted in the enactment of the Finance Act, 2003, deleting the second proviso and bringing about uniformity in the first proviso by equating tax, duty, cess and fee with contributions to welfare funds. Once this uniformity is brought about in the first proviso, then, in our view, the Finance Act, 2003, which is made applicable by Parliament only with effect from 1-4-2004, would become curative in nature, hence, it would apply retrospec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t be entitled to deduction under Section 43- B of the Act for all times. They would lose the benefit of deduction even in the year of account in which they pay the contributions to the welfare funds, whereas a defaulter, who fails to pay the contribution to the welfare fund right up to 1-4-2004, and who pays the contribution after 1-4-2004, would get the benefit of deduction under Section 43-B of the Act." 44. There is no doubt that in Alom Extrusions, this court did consider the impact of deletion of second proviso to Section 43B, which mandated that unless the amount of employers' contribution was deposited with the authorities, the deduction otherwise permissible in law, would not be available. This court was of the opinion that the omission was curative, and that as long as the employer deposited the dues, before filing the return of income tax, the deduction was available. 45. A reading of the judgment in Alom Extrusions, would reveal that this court, did not consider Sections 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va). Furthermore, the separate provisions in Section 36(1) for employers' contribution and employees' contribution, too went unnoticed. The court observed inter alia,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmissioner of Income17 this court held as follows: "27. It is trite law that a taxing statute is to be construed strictly. In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is said in the relevant provision. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. (See: Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioners (1921) 1 KB 64 and Federation of A.P. Chambers of Commerce and Industry and Ors. v. State of A.P. and Ors.(2000) 6 SCC 550. In interpreting a taxing statute, the Court must look squarely at the words of the statute and interpret them. Considerations of hardship, injustice and equity are entirely out of place in interpreting a taxing statute. (Also see: Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh v. The Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. 1961 (2) SCR 189.)" 47. Likewise, this court underlined the rule, regarding interpretation of taxing statutes, in Commissioner of Income Tax-III v Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana.18 Recently, in Union of India &Ors. vs. Exide Industries Limited & Ors,19 this court examined, and repelled a challenge to the constitutionality of Section 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the welfare of employees..." *** 23. With the passage of time, the legislature inserted more deductions to Section 43B including cess, bonus or commission payable by employer, interest on loans payable to financial institutions, scheduled banks etc., payment in lieu of leave encashment by the employer and repayment of dues to the railways. Thus understood, there is no oneness or uniformity in the nature of deductions included in Section 43B. It holds no merit to urge that this Section only provides for deductions concerning statutory liabilities. Section 43B is a mix bag and new and dissimilar entries have been inserted therein from time to time to cater to different fiscal scenarios, which are best determined by the government of the day. It is not unusual or abnormal for the legislature to create a new liability, exempt an existing liability, create a deduction or subject an existing deduction to override regulations or conditions. 24. The leave encashment scheme envisages the payment of a certain amount to the employees in lieu of their unused paid leaves in a year. The nature of this payment is beneficial and pro-employee. However, it is not in the fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dinal rule of interpretation that where a statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be done in the manner prescribed and not in any other way. It is also settled rule of interpretation that where a statute is penal in character, it must be strictly construed and followed. Since the requirement, in the instant case, of obtaining prior permission is mandatory, therefore, non-compliance with the same must result in cancelling the concession made in favour of the grantee, the respondent herein." See for e.g., Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2004 Supp (4) SCR 35. State of Jharkhand v Ambay Cements, (2005) 1 SCC 368. This was also reaffirmed in a number of judgments, such as Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ace Multi Axes Systems Ltd.22 50. The Constitution Bench, in Commissioner. of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co. 23 endorsed as following: "24. In construing penal statutes and taxation statutes, the Court has to apply strict rule of interpretation. The penal statute which tends to deprive a person of right to life and liberty has to be given strict interpretation or else many innocents might become vic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee i.e., Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Aimil Ltd.24; Commissioner of Income-Tax and another v. Sabari Enterprises25; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd.26; Commissioner of Income-Tax, Udaipur v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sandh Ltd.27 and Nipso Poly fabriks (supra) would reveal that in all these cases, the High Courts principally relied upon omission of second proviso to Section 43B (b). No doubt, many of these decisions also dealt with Section 36(va) with its explanation. However, the primary consideration in all the judgments, cited by the assessee, was that they adopted the approach indicated in the ruling in Alom Extrusions. As noticed previously, Alom Extrutions did not consider the fact of the introduction of Section 2(24)(x) or in fact the other provisions of the Act. 52. When Parliament introduced Section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer's contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee's contribution being considered as part of the employer's earning. On the application of the original principles of law it could have been treated only as receipts not amounting to income. When ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us, timely payment of these alone entitle an assessee to the benefit of deduction from the total income. The essential objective of Section 43B is to ensure that if assessees are following the mercantile method of accounting, nevertheless, the deduction of such liabilities, based only on book entries, would not be given. To pass muster, actual payments were a necessary pre-condition for allowing the expenditure. 53. The distinction between an employer's contribution which is its primary liability under law - in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part of the employers' income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of Section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts - the employer's liability is to be paid out of its income whereas the second is deemed an income, by definition, since i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olding to the contrary, do not lay down the correct law. For these reasons, this court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeals are accordingly dismissed." As the issue involved in the present appeal is no more res-integra pursuant to the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-I (supra),, therefore, in terms of our aforesaid observations we respectfully follow the same and uphold the view taken by the AO and sustain the disallowance of the delayed deposit of employees share of contribution towards EPF of Rs.1,48,041/-. Thus, the Ground of appeal No. 1 raised by the revenue is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. (B). Re : Disallowance u/s 14A r.w Rule 8D : Rs. 65,59,256/- 33. We shall now deal with the grievance of the revenue that the CIT(Appeal) had erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.65,59,256/- made by the A.O u/s.14A r.w Rule 8D. 34. At the threshold it was averred by the ld. AR that as the assessee company had not earned any exempt income during the year under consideration, therefore, no disallowance was called for in its hands....