TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Employer's initial contribution to recognised provident/superannuation fund u/s36(1)(iv): full deduction allowed, revenue appeals dismissed</h1> Section 36(1)(iv) permits deduction of sums paid by an employer as contribution to a recognised provident fund or approved superannuation fund, subject to ... Deductions on account of contributions to recognised provident funds and approved superannuation funds - notification issued by CBDT - Whether, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the entire initial contribution made to the superannuation fund is allowable deduction ? - HELD THAT:- Section 36(1)(iv) states that the deductions provided in the clauses thereof 'shall be allowed' when computing income under section 28. Clause (iv) lists as so deductible any sum paid by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution towards a recognised provident fund or an approved superannuation fund, subject to limits that may be prescribed for the purposes of recognition of these funds and subject also to such conditions as the Board might think fit to specify in cases where the contributions are not in the nature of annual contributions of fixed amounts or annual contributions fixed on some definite basis by reference to the income chargeable under the head 'Salaries' or to the contributions or to the number of members of the fund. The contributions in the instant case were not payments for recognition or approval and, therefore, outside the limits that could be prescribed under clause (iv) in that behalf. We think, in the circumstances, that the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Ltd. [1988 (4) TMI 47 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT], is substantially correct. We use the qualifying word 'substantially' because it has not been necessary for us in these proceedings to go into the correctness of its view that the Board could not have required actual payment of the contribution. The appeals are dismissed. Issues:1. Interpretation of Section 36(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act regarding deductions for contributions to recognized provident funds and approved superannuation funds.2. Validity of the notification issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes specifying conditions for deductions.3. Assessment of whether the conditions laid down in the notification exceed the powers conferred on the Board under Section 36(1)(iv).Analysis:1. The primary issue in this judgment revolves around the interpretation of Section 36(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act concerning deductions for contributions to recognized provident funds and approved superannuation funds. The case in question involved an appeal regarding the deduction of the entire initial contribution made to a superannuation fund. The Income-tax Officer initially allowed only 80% of the aggregate contribution over a five-year period, relying on a notification issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the deduction in full, leading to the current appeal.2. The validity of the notification issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes specifying conditions for deductions under Section 36(1)(iv) was a crucial aspect of the judgment. The notification, dated October 21, 1965, imposed conditions on the deduction of contributions to approved superannuation funds. It limited the total contribution to 25% of the employee's salary, allowed only 80% of the amount actually paid by the employer as a deduction, and mandated the spread of the deduction over five years. The court analyzed whether these conditions were within the powers conferred on the Board under the relevant section.3. The assessment of whether the conditions laid down in the notification exceeded the powers conferred on the Board under Section 36(1)(iv) was a significant point of contention. The court scrutinized each condition specified in the notification to determine its consistency with the statutory provisions. It was observed that while some conditions aligned with the statutory framework, others, such as limiting the deduction to 80% of the amount paid and spreading it over five years, were deemed impermissible attempts to curtail the scope of deductions granted by the section. The court ultimately upheld the view that the conditions in the notification went beyond the statutory authority conferred on the Board.In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the decision that the conditions specified in the notification for deductions on contributions to approved superannuation funds were impermissible and exceeded the powers granted under Section 36(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the statutory provisions, the notification issued by the Board, and the implications for deductions in such cases, setting a precedent for future interpretations of similar matters.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
