DCIT v. Shradha Agencies (P) Ltd.

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Dy. CIT v. JSW Ltd. 2020 TaxPub(DT) 2142 (Mum-Trib)
REFERRED Pr. CIT v. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. 2017 TaxPub(DT) 3917 (SC)
REFERRED Soma Rani Ghosh v. Dy. CIT 2016 TaxPub(DT) 4188 (Kol-Trib)
REFERRED Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT 2015 TaxPub(DT) 3520 (Del-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation 2014 TaxPub(DT) 1235 (Guj-HC)
REFERRED Commissioner of Income-tax v. Expeditors International (India) (P.) Ltd. 2012 TaxPub(DT) 2738 (Del-HC)
REFERRED T.R.F. Ltd. v. CIT 2010 TaxPub(DT) 1481 (SC)
REFERRED CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd 2009 TaxPub(DT) 2109 (SC)
REFERRED CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. 2006 TaxPub(DT) 1710 (Gau-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Bata India Ltd. 1993 TaxPub(DT) 1245 (Cal-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. 1983 TaxPub(DT) 0599 (Cal-HC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 2548 (Kol-Trib) IN THE ITAT, KOLKATA BENCH S.S. GODARA, J.M. & A.L. SAINI, A.M. DCIT v. Shradha Agencies (P) Ltd. ITA No. 1362/Kol/2018 12 June, 2020 Revenue Dismissed. Appellant by: Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT Respondent by: Ankita Manek, ACA ORDER *A.L. Saini, A.M.* The captioned appeal filed by the revenue, pertaining to assessment year 2013-14, is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeal)-5, Kolkata, in Appeal No. 174/Commissioner (Appeals)-5/Cir-13(2)/16-17, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 144/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act') dated 31-3-2016. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are as follows :-- 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 19,85,240 as the claim of deduction is related to employee's contribution to welfare funds and not to employer's contribution. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 12,72,983 as the learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate the proviso (i) of section 36(2) of the Act as laid down by Board's Circular No. 12/2016, dated 30-5-2016. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in deleting the addition to the tune of Rs. 6,37,75,651 as the assessee failed to comply with the provision of section 194C(7) thereby attracting the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 56,57,052 as during the course of assessment the assessee failed to furnish necessary documents/explanation regarding the nature and necessity of expenses that has been incurred by it on behalf of its agency in respect of which the reimbursement is made. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 2548 (Kol-Trib)

IN THE ITAT, KOLKATA BENCH

S.S. GODARA, J.M. & A.L. SAINI, A.M.

DCIT v. Shradha Agencies (P) Ltd.

ITA No. 1362/Kol/2018

12 June, 2020

Revenue Dismissed.

Appellant by: Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT

Respondent by: Ankita Manek, ACA

ORDER

A.L. Saini, A.M.

The captioned appeal filed by the revenue, pertaining to assessment year 2013-14, is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeal)-5, Kolkata, in Appeal No. 174/Commissioner (Appeals)-5/Cir-13(2)/16-17, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 144/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act') dated 31-3-2016.

2. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are as follows :--

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 19,85,240 as the claim of deduction is related to employee's contribution to welfare funds and not to employer's contribution.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 12,72,983 as the learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate the proviso (i) of section 36(2) of the Act as laid down by Board's Circular No. 12/2016, dated 30-5-2016.

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in deleting the addition to the tune of Rs. 6,37,75,651 as the assessee failed to comply with the provision of section 194C(7) thereby attracting the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.

4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 56,57,052 as during the course of assessment the assessee failed to furnish necessary documents/explanation regarding the nature and necessity of expenses that has been incurred by it on behalf of its agency in respect of which the reimbursement is made.