TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1045
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....king stay on the recovery of the demand in relation to the present ITA. Both the parties agreed to take up the appeal of the assessee first for adjudication. 2.1. The Ground raised by the assessee in this appeal are reproduced as under: "Ground 1 Disallowance U/s 36(1) (va) on account of payment to Employer contribution of PF ESIC after the respective due date Ground 2 Disallowance U/s36(1)(iii) on account of interest on non- interest bearing Loan given Ground 3 Disallowance U/s.43B on account of Non-payment of Service Tax GST after due date of filing of income tax return." 3. Briefly stated fact of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 31.10.2018 declaring its total income at ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he due date prescribed under the respective statutory enactments, the learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the learned CIT(A). On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC), in support of the disallowance. 6. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. We find that issue of disallowance of Employee's Contribution to PF/ESI paid after due date prescribed under relevant Acts has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme High Court in the case of Checkmate services Private Ltd. v/s. CIT (supra). The relevant findi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pital assets and as to why such proportionate interest expenses should not be disallowed u/s 36(1)(ii) of the Act all capitalized with the capital assets. The assessee had submitted that no interest bearing funds were diverted for non- business purposes without charging any interest or for any acquisition of assets. Further, the AO had found that addition u/s 36(1)(iii) on similar issue was made during AY 2017-18 also. In the assessment proceedings for AY 2017-18, the assessee has submitted that it had entered into a contract/work order with G&S Associates and had given advances of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- for the purpose of software and related IT infrastructure. However, on account some dispute, the contract was not executed and the party did no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....details/documentary evidence an amount given to Shri Pravin Gala and Mukesh Gada. Therefore, disallowance of Rs. 7,23,078/- made by the AO u/s 36(1) (iii) is confirmed. Accordingly, the ground of the appeal is dismissed." 9. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee reiterated that the advances made to Shri Mukesh Gala and Shri Pravin Gala were in connection with a proposed business contract, which ultimately did not materialize. It was further submitted that the said advances were not returned. However, the learned counsel failed to furnish any documentary evidence to substantiate that the advances were made for business purposes. The learned CIT(A) has also observed that similar disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer in the....