1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Tribunal Decision: Gratuity Fund Contribution Disallowed, Tea Estate Bridges Depreciation Upheld</h1> The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by the revenue, reversing the CIT (Appeals) order disallowing liability for contribution to a gratuity fund but ... - Issues:1. Allowance of liability for contribution to gratuity fund disallowed by ITO.2. Allowance of depreciation on bridges in tea estate disputed by revenue.Issue 1: Allowance of liability for contribution to gratuity fund disallowed by ITOThe appeal was filed by the revenue against the order of the CIT (Appeals) concerning the allowance of liability for contribution to a gratuity fund. The assessee company had created a gratuity fund approved by the CIT with retrospective effect. The ITO disallowed the claim of Rs. 1,89,633 for gratuity liability, stating that provision in the accounts was compulsory for payment to an approved gratuity fund, which the assessee had not done. The CIT (Appeals) held that the claim was an admissible deduction under section 36(1)(v) as the liability was incurred statutorily and covered by the mercantile system of accounting. The revenue contended that the claim was not admissible under section 36(1)(v) and highlighted the provisions of section 40A(7). The Tribunal, following the Calcutta High Court judgment, reversed the CIT (Appeals) order, stating that the claim for incremental liability for contribution towards an approved gratuity fund was not an allowable deduction under section 36(1)(v).Issue 2: Allowance of depreciation on bridges in tea estate disputed by revenueThe second ground of appeal was related to the allowance of depreciation on bridges in a tea estate. The ITO had rejected the claim for depreciation on the bridges, but the CIT (Appeals) directed the ITO to allow the claim, considering the bridges as buildings entitled to depreciation. The revenue contended that bridges could not be classified as buildings and depreciation should not be allowed. The assessee relied on a Tribunal order stating that bridges in tea gardens constitute buildings eligible for depreciation. The Tribunal, in agreement with the earlier Tribunal order, held that bridges in tea gardens are entitled to depreciation as per the IT Rules and directed the ITO to allow depreciation on bridges accordingly.In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by the revenue, reversing the CIT (Appeals) order on the allowance of liability for contribution to a gratuity fund but upholding the allowance of depreciation on bridges in a tea estate.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
