2021 (9) TMI 1581

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nged the deletion of disallowance of 14A of Rs.4,43,31,582/- and deletion of addition of Rs.3,51,066/- made u/s.36(1)(va) on account of delayed payment of employees contribution to the provident fund and ESI. 2. At the threshold, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in so far as disallowance u/s.14A is concerned, it is an admitted fact that there is no dividend income has been received by the assessee during the year, and therefore, no disallowance u/s. 14A can be made. This he pointed out, is evident from paragraph 5.8 of the appellate order. Apart from that, this Tribunal in assessee's own case for the Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2013-14 in ITAs No.4216 and 4217/Del/2016 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 3. In....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....el/2016 (Del. Trib.) 54-61 12. Azamgarh Steel & Power Pvt. Ltd. vs CPC ITA No. 1626/Del/2020 (Del. Trib.) 62-67 13. Yogi Ji Technoequip Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT [2021] 129 taxmann.com 313 (Del. Trib.) 68-70 14. Extract of Finance Bill, 2021 and Anorandum to the Finance Bill, 2021   71-74 15. DCIT vs. Bharat Pumps & Compressors Ltd. ITA No. 147/Alld/2016 (Alld. Trib.) 75-152 4. On the other hand, ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. After considering the aforesaid submissions and on perusal of the impugned orders, we find that in so far as disallowance u/s. 14A is concerned, it is an admitted fact that assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year under consideration, and therefore, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on'ble High Court vide judgment and order dated 10th September, 2018 following the earlier judgment of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. (supra) had decided this issue in the following manner: "In view of the judgment of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax versus Aimil Limited, (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del) the issue is covered against the Revenue and, therefore, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The legislative intent was/is to ensure that the amount paid is allowed as an expenditure only when payment is actual made. We do not think that the legislative intent and objective is to treat belated payment of Employee's Provident Fund (EPD) and Employee's State Insurance Scheme ....