Forum
Read and express views
× Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals in India

These are the latest case laws decided by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT) of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.

01-03-2019, JRG Securities, Section 35D(2)(c)(iv), 35D, Tribunal Cochin

  • amit
  • amit's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
More
2 weeks 1 day ago #8745 by amit
Section - 35D(2)(c)(iv), 35D, 139(5), 43B, 37, 350
Order Date - 01-03-2019
Favouring - Revenue Partly allowed for statistical purposes
Court - Tribunal Cochin
Appellant - ITO
Respondent - JRG Securities Ltd.
Justice - CHANDRA POOJARI, AM & GEORGE GEORGE K., JM
Citation - 319Taxpundit185
Appeal No. - I.T.A. No.356/Coch/2017
Asstt. Year - 2008-09

Order

PER : CHANDRA POOJARI, AM:

These appeals filed by the assessee as well as by the Revenue are directed against the order of the CIT(A)-1, Kochi and pertain to the assessment year 2008- 09. The assessee has also filed Cross Objection in C.O. No.03/Coch/2018 against Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 356/Coch/2017 for the assessment year 2008-09. ITA No. 356/Coch/2017 : Revenue’s appeal : AY 2008-09

2. The first ground, Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue is with regard to deletion of addition of Rs.6,74,707/- made u/s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) in respect of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI.

3. After hearing both the parties, we find that this issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Merchem Ltd. (378 ITR 443) wherein it was held that due date in the respective ESI/PF Act is the date to be considered for allowing deduction u/s. 36(1)(va).

3.1 In view of the above judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court, we are inclined to reverse the order of the CIT(A) and restore that of the Assessing Officer. Hence, employees’ contribution to PF/ESI after due date under the relevant PF/ESI Act is not eligible for deduction u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Act. This ground of appeal of the Revenue is allowed.

4. The next ground, Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue is with regard to allowance of purported non-IPO expenses to the tune of Rs.1,17,77,496/- in AY 2008-09. The CIT(A) erred in allowing the aforesaid expenditure u/s. 37(1) in AY 2008-09 which was incurred in earlier F.Y. 2006-07 and liability discharged in that year itself..

4.1 The facts of the case are that the assessee had incurred an amount of Rs.1,47,85,680/- in relation to the IPO undertaken by the assessee during the F.Y. 2006-07. The Company had claimed a deduction of one fifth of the total expenditure incurred being an amount of Rs.29,57,136/- (1/5th of Rs.1,47,85,680/-). The detailed split of Rs 1,47,85,680/- is as follows:

The Assessing Officer, while computing the taxable income, had disallowed an amount of Rs.29,57,136/- being the amount of expenditure incurred towards the
public issue of shares which primarily relates to advertisement expenses, postage and courier, printing and stationery, travelling expenses etc. The Assessing Officer had disallowed the said amount on the content on that the expenditure was capital in nature and was incurred in earlier assessment year and was considered as deferred/prior period capital expenditure.

4.2 On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made of Rs.23,55,449 (out of the total disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.29,57,136) and confirmed the balance disallowance of Rs.6,01,636/-. The CIT(A) held that the expenses incurred towards advertising, travelling, postage etc. were purely in the revenue field and operational in nature and intended for the furtherance of the assessee’s business. It was held that expenses would have been incurred irrespective of whether the IPO had taken place or not.

4.3 Against this, the Revenue is in appeal before us.

Click to view and download Full Free Judgement of ITO vs. JRG Securities Ltd.

Unable to display Google Map.




Time to create page: 1.943 seconds

If You Appreciate What We Do Here On TaxPundit, You Should Consider:

We are thankful for your never ending support.

Latest Analysis - High Courts

RAJAN BHATIA vs CBDT

RAJAN BHATIA vs CBDT

RAJAN BHATIA vs CBDT Read More
ALFA BHOJ LIMITED vs DCIT

ALFA BHOJ LIMITED vs DCIT

ALFA BHOJ LIMITED vs DCIT Read More
PCIT vs GEETANJALI CREDITS AND CAPITAL LIMITED

PCIT vs GEETANJALI CREDITS AND CAPITAL LIMITED

PCIT vs GEETANJALI CREDITS AND CAPITAL LIMITED Read More
BHARTI INFRATEL LIMITED vs. DCIT

BHARTI INFRATEL LIMITED vs. DCIT

BHARTI INFRATEL LIMITED vs. DCIT Read More
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27

Forum Features

Latest Case Laws
Latest Case Laws are instantly updated in the Forum into their respective section
Latest from CBDT
Latest Circulars, Notifications, Orders etc. from CBDT is updated in the Forum
Ask Experts
You can ask questions to the community
Support
Support queries are either replied via mail or in the Forum so that others can be benefited
Press Releases
Latest Press Notes and Press Releases are updated in the Forum
Connect with Members
You can connect with our community members by replying to their queries

Recommended Articles

 

SITE INFORMATION

All content herein is the copyright of Taxpundit. No images, text, or any other content may be, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of Taxpundit.

All Rights Reserved. All Content Copyright.

Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest developments and special offers!

Create your own website as per ICAI guidelines. Plan starts at Rs. 15000/- with Free Premium Membership. Read more
Toggle Bar