TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1300
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and in the circumstances -the Ld. CIT (A)/NFAC has erred in law by upholding the Ld. AO's inclusion in the average value of investment under rule 8D (2) (ii) the investment value of joint venture co. from which no exempt income accrued / received during the previous year 17-18 to work out disallowance of expenses. iii. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) erred in law by not adjudicating the claim of deduction of below mentioned allowable business expenses aggregating to Rs 45,301.83 lakhs* made in revised taxable income statement filed during assessment proceedings declaring revised income at Rs. 203,58.75 Lakhs instead ld.CIT(A) issued directions to ld. AO to verify & decide the claim of appellant. *Break-up of Rs. 45,301.83 lakhs mentioned below: Sl. No Particulars Amount in Rs. Lakhs 1. Employees Pensionary charges provision under CCS rules based on actuarial valuation 20736.23 2. Employees Pensionary charges provision created in previous year for preceding years based on actuarial valuation (under CCS Rules Govt, of India) 22768.25 3. Provision of post-retirement medical benefits to employees....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his case, though issue is consequential in nature. The appellant craves leave to add/alter/or substitute or withdraw any ground (s) during or before completion of appellate proceedings.; 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a Central Govt. PSU under the Ministry of Finance. Its main activities are to print legal currency for Central Bank i.e., RBI and minting of coins etc. for Govt. of India. It has its operating units in various states with corporate office in New Delhi. The assessee is also engaged in printing passport and travel documents with labelling high security inks. 4. The assessee filed its Return of Income declaring an income of Rs. 538,33,68,240/-. Return was selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS and accordingly, statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 13,83,30,61,039/- including adjustments of Rs. 7,21,87,45,798/-. 5. Ground No. (i) is general in nature. Ground Nos. (iv) and (iva) have not been pressed. The same are dismissed as such. 6. Facts pertaining to Ground No. (ii) are that the ld. CIT(A) upheld the disall....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lly true that certain expenses need to be disallowed u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D of the Rules. There is no dispute that the assessee has received dividend income accrued from SBI Mutual Fund. We also find that there is no satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer which is against the legal principles. No working was made by the Assessing Officer as to which expenses appearing in the P & L A/c are co-related to dividend income when there is clear assertion by the assessee that no expenses have been incurred in relation to earning exempt income of dividend. 8. We further find that the Assessing Officer at Para 5 of his order has observed as under: "However the assesse company did not debit any expenses to profit and loss account relating to exempt income." It is thus, evident from the above that the Assessing Officer has himself mentioned that there is no expenditure which is directly attributable to the exempt income and disallowances have been made only considering the past history of the assessee. The past history, i.e, A.Y 2011-12 to AY 2014-15 shows that this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the ITAT and confirmed by the hon'bl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O had neither given any reasons for addition nor gave the assessee any opportunity to explain. 12. Aggrieved further, the assessee is in appeal before us and contended that five items collectively represent the sum of Rs. 45,301 lakh which were claimed as deduction by filing revised taxable income statement. The assessee has also offered suo-moto an addition of Rs 11,827.30 lakh in revised taxable income. 13. The ld. counsel for the assessee further contended that the assessee has created an Employee's Pension Fund trust, therein crediting the contribution determined with actuarial valuation and debited to the Profit & Loss A/c in the previous year 2017-18. On being agreed with this condition of employees & approved by Board of Directors of the Appellant company, a pension contribution by employer not exceeding to 8.33 % of salary and under Rules 87 & 88 of Income Tax Rules was debited to P&L a/c based on actuarial valuation during FY 2017-18. 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee continued by saying that this pension is payable for a fixed amount on the retirement/death /resignation of employee as per pension rules and not during employment and is worked out as per AS-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Report. 19. We are of the considered view that the expenditure towards club membership is allowable in the light of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s United Glass Mfg. Co. Ltd (supra) and the advertisement expense towards bringing out Tender & other business advertisement are allowable expense u/s 37(1). The ground (iii) is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 20. Ground No. (v), additional ground in place of Ground (v), is with regard to disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. The issue of disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of employees' contribution to the Provident Fund deposited beyond the due date as prescribed in the respective PF/ESIC Act is no more res integra as the quarrel is now settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee by the decision in the case of Checkmate Services [Pvt] Ltd 448 ITR 518. 21. The assessee another grievance is that the CPC is not empowered to disallow the same u/s 143(1) of the Act. This issue is also decided against the assessee in the case of Savleen Kaur vs. Income-tax officer [2023] 147 taxmann.com 402 (Delhi - Trib.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the coordinate bench decision is prior to the decision of Supreme Court. It was further held that if any narrow interpretation is given to the decision of Supreme Court stating that it was rendered in context of only 143(3), such interpretation will defeat the very purpose of the intention of legislature and the Supreme Court decision. It was therefore held that the ratio lead down in the SC decision is equally applicable to intimation u/s. 143(1) and assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act. 23. Similarly, the ld ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Surendra Devid Thokal Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) has confirmed the CPC adjustment of Employee contributions for PF/ESI delayed payments as not deductible following the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services. The Ahmedabad Tax Tribunal in the case of M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (I.T.A. No. 69/Ahd/2023) have held that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Private Limited is declaration of law which is applicable to all proceedings whether it is scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the IT Act or the proceeding of processing tax return under Section 143(1) of the IT Act. Following the above decision, we ....