TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 1454
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ime 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 deleting the addition of Rs.5,17,200/- made by the Assessing Officer on account....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 company were related to and incurred for the purpose of its business. It was further observed by CIT(Appeals) that the aforesaid expenses were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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, 1963. 14. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) vacated the aforesaid disallowance of Rs.1,08,17,711/- made by the A.O u/s.14A r.w.r. 8D for two fold reasons, viz. (i).....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 of the assessee company reveals that it had during the year earned an exempt income of Rs. 76,007/-. The CIT(Appeals) while vacating the disallowance made by the A.O u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D of Rs.1,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aimed. 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 Ground of appeal No. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. (C). Re. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of transmission charges: Rs. 1,18,63,401. 18. It transpires on a perus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (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 appellant and read the findings of the AO on treating the wheeling charges as a TDS deductible payment. Though the AO has held that TDS is deductible he has not specified under which section of the Act the appellant is liable to make a TDS for the payments so made. He has only quoted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 made by the AO for failure to make TDS on wheeling charges is not sustainable, hence the disallowance u/s 40 (a)(ia) of the Act is deleted and this ground of appeal is allowed." We find that the aforesaid view of the CIT(Appeals) is supported by the order of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Chhattisgarh St....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ansmission 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 from the asset in question, it is a condition precedent for invoking Section 194 I that the asset, for the use of which the payment in question is made, should have some element of its control by the assessee. Here is a case in which the assessee has no control over the operations of the transmission lines, and all that he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 use, at a fixed hire per day or hire per km. subject to an assured minimum, for a period of one month or one week or even one day; and under the contract , the transport operator is responsible for making repairs apart from providing a driver to drive the lorry and filling the vehicle with diesel for running the lorry. The transaction involves an id....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at 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 hands. 24. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals ) vacated the aforesaid disallowance. 25. Assailing the order of the CIT(Appeals), it was submitted by ld. DR that as the aforesaid expenses which were incurred in cash by the assessee company were only supported by self-drawn vouchers and not open for verification in the course of the assessment proceedings, therefore, the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as 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 in favour of the assessee by observing as under: "7. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid issue in hand, and are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to incongruous basis adopted by the lower authorities for disallowing the assessee's claim for deduction of commission expenses. As is discernible from the record, the assessee in the course of the proceedings before the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 terms of our aforesaid observations. ITA No.92/RPR/2020 A.Y. 2012-13 29. Now we shall take up the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No.92/RPR/2020 for A.Y.2013-14 wherein the impugned order has been assailed by the assessee company 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.1,48,041/- made by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0. 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 or other similar liability spelt out by the provision. 31. Section 43B falls in Part-V of the IT Act. What is apparent is that the scheme of the Act is such that Sections 28 to 38 deal with different kinds of deductions, whereas Sections 40 to 43B spell out special provisions, laying out the mechanism for assessments and expressly prescribing conditions for disallowances. In terms of this scheme, Section 40 (which too starts with a non- obstante clause overridin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 described as "sum paid by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution towards a recognized provident fund". However, the phraseology of Section 36(1)(va) differs from Section 36(1)(iv). It enacts that "any sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 apply, if such sum is credited by the assessee to the employee's account in the relevant fund or funds on or before the due date." The essential charact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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. The due date for the purposes of this proviso shall be the due date as under Explanation to clause (va) of sub-section (1) of Section 36." 37. It is evident that the intent of the lawmakers was clear that sums referred to in clause (b) of Section 43B, i.e., "sum payable as an employer, by way of contribution" refers to the contribution by the employer. The reference to "due date" in the second proviso to Section 43B was to have the same meaning as provided in the explanation to Section 36(1)(va). Parliament therefore, through thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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. they should be allowed in the year of account. Since the objective of the provision is to ensure that a tax-payer does not avail of any statutory liability without actually making a payment for the same, we are of the view that these objectives would be served if the deduction for the statutory liability relating to labour are allowed in the year of payment. The complete disallowance of such payments is too harsh a punishment for delayed payments. Therefore, we recommend that the deduction for delayed payment of statutory liability relating to labour should be allowed in the year of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....econd 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 such employees constituted income. This is the reason why every assessee(s) M.M. Aqua Technologies Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 575. [employer(s)] was entitled to deduction even prior to 1-4-1984, on mercantile system of accounting as a business expenditure by making provision in his books of accounts in that regard. In other words, if an assessee(s) [employer(s)] is maintaining his books on accrual system of accounting, even after collecting the contribution from his employee(s) and even without remitting the amount to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC), the assessee(s) would be entitled to deduction as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 retrospectively with effect from 1-4-1988. 19. Secondly, it may be noted that, in Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT [(1997) 3 SCC 472 : (1997) 224 ITR 677] , the scheme of Section 43-B of the Act came to be examined. In that case, the question which arose for determination was, whether sales tax collected by the assessee and paid after the end of the relevant previous year but within the time allowed under the relevant sales tax law should be disallowed under Section 43-B of the Act while computing the business income of the previous year? That was a case which related to Assessment Year 1984-1985. The relevant accounting period ended on 30-6-1983. The Income Tax Officer disallowed the deduction claime....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 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, that: "15. ...It is important to note once again that, by Finance Act, 2003, not only the second proviso is deleted but even the first proviso is sought to be amended by bringing about an uniformity in tax, duty, cess and fee on the one hand vis-a-vis contributions to welfare funds of employee(s) on the other. This is one more reason why we hold that the Finance Act, 2003, is retrospective in operation. Moreover, the judgement in Allied Motors (P) Limited (supra) is delivered by a Bench of three learned Judges, which is binding on us. Accordingly, we hold that Finance Act, 2003 will operate retrospectively with effect from 1st April, 1988 [when the first proviso stood inserted]. Lastly, we may point out the hardship and the invidious di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tute. (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 43B, especially the provision requiring actual payment, in respect of leave encashment benefit of employees. The court observations in this regard are relevant: "20. Section 43B, however, is enacted to provide for deductions to be availed by the Assessee in lieu of liabilities accruing in previous year without making actual payment to discharge the same. It is not a provision to place any embargo upon the autonomy of the Assessee in adopting a particular method of accounting, nor deprives the Assessee of any lawful deduction. Instead, it merely operates as an additional condition for the availment of deduction qua the specified head. Ajmera Housing Corporation & Ors. vs. Commissioner of Income, 2010 (8) SCC 739. Commissioner of Income Tax-III v Calcutta Knitwear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w 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 form of a bounty and forms a part of the conditions of service of the employee. An employer seeking deduction from tax liability in advance, in the name of discharging the liability of leave encashment, without actually extending such payment to the employee as and when the time for payment arises may lead to abhorrent consequences. When time for such payment arises upon retirement (or otherwise) of the employee, an employer may simply refuse to pay. Consequently, the innocent employee will be entangled in litigation in the evening of his/her life for claiming a hard-earned right without any fault on his part. Concomitantly, it would entail in double benefit to the employer - advance deduction from tax liability without any burden of actual payment and refusal to pay as and when occasion arises. It is this mischief Clause (f) see....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndorsed 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 victims of discretionary decision-making. Insofar as taxation statutes are concerned, Article 265 of the Constitution [ "265. Taxes not to be imposed save by authority of law.-No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law."] prohibits the State from extracting tax from the citizens without authority of law. It is axiomatic that taxation statute has to be interpreted strictly because the State cannot at their whims and fancies burden the citizens without authority of law. In other words, when the competent legislature mandates taxing certain persons/certain objects in certain circumstances, it cannot be expanded/interpreted to include those, which were not intended by the legislature. *** 34. The passages extracted above, were quoted with approval by this Court in at least two decisions being CIT v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd. [CIT v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 346] and State of W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 Parliament introduced the amendments in 1988-89, inserting Section 36(1)(va) and simultaneously inserting the second proviso of Section 43B, its intention was not to treat the disparate nature of the amounts, similarly. As discussed previously, the memorandum introducing the Finance Bill clearly stated that the provisions - especially second proviso to Section 43B - was introduced to ensure timely payments were made by the employer to the concerned fund (EPF, ESI, etc.) and avoid the mischief of employers retaining amounts for long periods. That Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Aimil Ltd., [2010] 321 ITR 508 (Delhi High Court). Commissioner of Income-Tax and another Vs. Sabari Enterprises, [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Karnataka High Court). Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd., [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bombay High Court). Commissioner of Income-Tax, Udaipur v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sandh Ltd., [2013] 35 taxmann.com 616 (Rajasthan High Cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re 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 it is the deduction from the employees' income and held in trust by the employer. This marked distinction has to be borne while interpreting the obligation of every assessee under Section 43B. 54. In the opinion of this Court, the reasoning in the impugned judgment that the non- obstante clause would not in any manner dilute or override the employer's obligation to deposit the amounts retained by it or deducted by it from the employee's income, unless the condition that it is deposited on or before the due date, is correct and justified. The non-obstante clause has to be understood in the context of the entire provision of Section 43B which is to ensure timely payment before the returns are filed, of certain liabilities which are to be borne by the assessee in the form of tax, interest payment and other statutory liability. In the case of these liabilities, what constitutes the due date is defined by the statute. Nevertheless, the assessees are given some leeway in that as long as dep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erred 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 u/s 14A of the Act. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that in absence of any exempt income the provisions of Section 14A could not be triggered. Ld. AR in support of her aforesaid contention had placed reliance on the decision of the ITAT, Raipur Bench in the case of Ind Synergy Ltd. Vs. DCIT, ITA No.312/RPR/2016 dated 30.03.2022. It was also submitted by the Ld. AR that as the assessee had interest free funds aggregating to Rs. 46.96 crore, viz. (i). share capital of Rs.41 crore; and (ii). reserves & surplus of Rs.5.95, which was more than the investments made in exempt dividend income yielding investments, therefore no disallowance of any part of the assessee's claim for deduction of interest expenditure was called for in its case u/s 14A of the Act. The Ld. AR in support of her aforesaid contention had relied on the following decisions: (i) South India Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT (2021) 438 ITR 1 (SC) (ii) HDFC Bank Vs. DCIT (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom.) 35. After having given a thoughtful consideration to the contentio....