Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 10(25)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for an approved superannuation fund notwithstanding that the approval was not renewed periodically and the exemption was not claimed under the correct provision.
Analysis: The approval granted to the superannuation fund under Part-B of Schedule IV of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was found to remain valid for the relevant assessment years. Rule 2 of Part-B of Schedule IV did not prescribe any requirement of renewal every three years. The fund was duly approved by the competent authority, and the exemption under section 10(25)(iii) was otherwise applicable to an approved superannuation fund. The Court also held that a wrong mention of the exemption provision did not disentitle the assessee from the statutory benefit when the entitlement in law was otherwise established.
Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to exemption under section 10(25)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the Revenue's challenge failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an approved superannuation fund satisfies the statutory conditions for exemption, the benefit cannot be denied merely because the exemption was cited under a wrong provision or because no renewal of approval was obtained when the governing rules do not require such renewal.