<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1982 (1) TMI 113 - ITAT MADRAS-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69624</link>
    <description>Section 36(1)(v) permits deduction for contribution to an approved gratuity fund created under an irrevocable trust for the exclusive purpose of providing gratuity benefits. The Fourth Schedule, Part C, Rules 2 and 3, were read as governing the fund&#039;s purpose, not limiting contributions to one employer&#039;s staff, so a common fund for employees of several companies was not inconsistent with the statute. As the fund&#039;s approval remained in force and had not been withdrawn under Rule 2, the Commissioner could not revise the assessment under section 263 on the footing that the allowed deduction was erroneous. The deduction was therefore upheld as allowable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:01:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=107985" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (1) TMI 113 - ITAT MADRAS-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69624</link>
      <description>Section 36(1)(v) permits deduction for contribution to an approved gratuity fund created under an irrevocable trust for the exclusive purpose of providing gratuity benefits. The Fourth Schedule, Part C, Rules 2 and 3, were read as governing the fund&#039;s purpose, not limiting contributions to one employer&#039;s staff, so a common fund for employees of several companies was not inconsistent with the statute. As the fund&#039;s approval remained in force and had not been withdrawn under Rule 2, the Commissioner could not revise the assessment under section 263 on the footing that the allowed deduction was erroneous. The deduction was therefore upheld as allowable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69624</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>