https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66002 Rule 75 was construed as applying only to shares held by an employee in his own capacity, so shares held personally could not be clubbed with shares held as karta of a Hindu undivided family. The same natural person acting in two distinct legal capacities was therefore not enough to aggregate holdings for the rule's ceiling. The text also distinguishes a statutory provident fund under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 from a recognised provident fund under Part A of the Fourth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, and states that rule 75 did not govern such a statutory fund. On that basis, employer contribution was not disallowed under section 36(1)(iv). en-us Tue, 30 Apr 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Feb 2011 17:36:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66002 Rule 75 was construed as applying only to shares held by an employee in his own capacity, so shares held personally could not be clubbed with shares held as karta of a Hindu undivided family. The same natural person acting in two distinct legal capacities was therefore not enough to aggregate holdings for the rule's ceiling. The text also distinguishes a statutory provident fund under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 from a recognised provident fund under Part A of the Fourth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, and states that rule 75 did not govern such a statutory fund. On that basis, employer contribution was not disallowed under section 36(1)(iv). Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 30 Apr 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66002