TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 2005
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax Act, 1961 ["the Act"] for the assessment years 2012-2013, 2016-2017 and 2018-2019. 2. Since identical issues are involved in these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. We take ITA No.859/Coch/2024 as the lead appeal for adjudication and to state that the decision that would arrive at therein would be applicable to the other two appeals as well. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is a limited company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing and dealing in switches, relays and other electromechanical components.. The return of income for the assessment year 2012-2013 was f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d made an addition of Rs. 10,61,485 under the provisions of sec.14A of the Act, which includes disallowance under sub-rule (2) of Rule 8D being interest expenditure of Rs. 4,64,888 and under sub-clause (3) amounting to Rs. 5,95,597. The AO also made a disallowance of contribution made to employees' welfare fund of Rs. 95,188, rejecting the contention of the appellant that the contribution was made out of business expediency for the welfare of the employees. 5. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances, the appellant filed appeal before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dated 16.10.2023 dismissed the grounds of appeal on both the issues. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. Before us it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alled for and he also placed reliance on the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd. 243 ITR 284 (Kerala). 9. On the other hand, the learned Senior DR by placing the reliance of the orders of the lower authorities submits that no interference is called in their orders. 10. We heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The grounds of appeal Nos.1 and 4 are general in nature, which does not require any specific adjudication. Ground No.2 challenges the disallowance made by the AO u/s.14A of the Act as confirmed by the CIT(A). We have carefully perused the assessment order as well as the order passed by the CIT(A). The appellant had asserted that no disallowance of intere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449(SC) and also in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 620 (SC). Therefore, in view of the settled position of law we direct the AO to delete the addition made u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) of Rs. 5,95,597. 12. In the result, ground No.2 filed by the assessee stands allowed. 13. Ground No.3 challenges the disallowance u/s.40A(9) towards the contribution made to employees' welfare fund. It is submitted that the contribution was made on account of contractual obligation in terms of the agreement entered into with the employees of the company and the provisions of 40A(9) has no application, placing reliance of Hon'ble Kerala Hig....