TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court allows deduction for provision to approved gratuity fund, even if approval post-provision.</h1> <h3>Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Chackola Spinning And Weaving Mills Limited</h3> Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Chackola Spinning And Weaving Mills Limited - [1989] 178 ITR 603, 76 CTR 163, 44 TAXMANN 353 Issues:1. Whether the respondent-assessees are entitled to deduction of the gratuity provision for the year 1976-77 under section 40A(7)(b)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961Rs.Analysis:The judgment pertains to two cases involving different respondents but sharing a common question regarding the entitlement of the respondent-assessees to a deduction of the gratuity provision for the assessment year 1976-77 under section 40A(7)(b)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court considered ITR No. 351 of 1982 and ITR No. 7 of 1984, with the former governing the latter. The central issue revolved around whether the provision made for gratuity by the assessee was eligible for deduction under the specified section. The court examined the timeline of events, including the creation and approval of the gratuity fund, to determine the eligibility of the deduction.In the case of ITR No. 351 of 1982, the respondent, a company not substantially owned by the public, claimed a deduction of Rs. 2,00,000 for the provision made for gratuity for the assessment year 1976-77. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim, citing the approval of the gratuity fund post the accounting year end. However, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the deduction, emphasizing that the approval of the fund at the time of contribution sufficed. The court analyzed the provisions of section 40A(7)(b)(i) and the legislative intent behind the amendment, emphasizing the necessity of a clear provision for contribution towards an approved gratuity fund.The court rejected the Revenue's argument that the existence of an approved gratuity fund at the time of provision and payment was essential for deduction under section 40A(7)(b)(i). It clarified that the provision must be made for contribution towards an approved gratuity fund, not necessarily requiring the fund's existence at the time of provision. Referring to circulars and precedents, the court affirmed that a clear provision for contribution to an approved fund sufficed for deduction. Additionally, it highlighted the transitional provisions and timelines for creating and approving the fund, ensuring the assessee's entitlement to the deduction.Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming their entitlement to the deduction of the provision made for payment to an approved gratuity fund for the assessment year 1976-77. The judgment was delivered against the Revenue in both cases, ITR No. 351 of 1982 and ITR No. 7 of 1984, with copies forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench for further action.
TaxTMI 