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>High Court allows deduction for provident fund & gratuity based on 12 months salary. Upholds Tribunal decision on commercial expediency.</h1> <h3>Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat I Versus Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel Tobacco Products Co. Limited</h3> The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the deduction for provident fund contribution and gratuity payments based on twelve months salary ... Business Expenditure, Gratuity, Provident Fund Issues involved:The judgment addresses three main issues: 1. Allowability of expenditure on provident fund contribution u/s 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Deduction of gratuity payments based on twelve months salary last drawn u/s 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. Disallowance of the entire payment of gratuity and the competence of the Tribunal to refer the question.Issue 1:The case involved a dispute over the deduction of provident fund contribution made before the fund's recognition. The Tribunal allowed the deduction under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, based on the concept of commercial expediency. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, citing relevant precedents and the principle that expenditure incurred for business purposes, even voluntarily, can be claimed as a deduction under section 37.Issue 2:Regarding the deduction of gratuity payments, the Tribunal considered only the payment equivalent to twelve months salary last drawn as reasonable. The High Court supported this decision, emphasizing that as long as a reasonable amount is paid as gratuity, it falls within the scope of section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The judgment referenced the Supreme Court's clarification on business expenditure related to gratuity payments.Issue 3:The third issue pertained to the disallowance of the entire gratuity payment by the Tribunal. The High Court declined to answer this question as it deemed the Tribunal's referral of this issue to be incompetent. The judgment highlighted the procedural aspect that only the aggrieved party can seek a reference under the Income-tax Act, and in this case, no such application was made by the assessee.The High Court answered the first two questions in favor of the assessee, affirming the deductions for provident fund contribution and gratuity payments based on twelve months salary last drawn. However, it declined to address the third question due to procedural irregularities. The Commissioner was directed to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
