<?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>1984 (8) TMI 168 - ITAT MADRAS-C</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70256</link>
    <description>Provision for gratuity to worker-members was treated as falling within the statutory framework for employee gratuity deductions under the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the term &quot;employees&quot; was not read so narrowly as to exclude them where the assessee itself had treated them as employees for gratuity purposes. The deduction nevertheless failed because there was no approved gratuity fund and the conditions in sections 36(1)(v) and 40A(7) were not met. The co-operative authorities&#039; computation of net profit could not override the Act&#039;s prescribed method of income computation, and the claim could not be allowed under the general computation provision when the special gratuity provisions were not satisfied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2011 10:54:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=108609" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (8) TMI 168 - ITAT MADRAS-C</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70256</link>
      <description>Provision for gratuity to worker-members was treated as falling within the statutory framework for employee gratuity deductions under the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the term &quot;employees&quot; was not read so narrowly as to exclude them where the assessee itself had treated them as employees for gratuity purposes. The deduction nevertheless failed because there was no approved gratuity fund and the conditions in sections 36(1)(v) and 40A(7) were not met. The co-operative authorities&#039; computation of net profit could not override the Act&#039;s prescribed method of income computation, and the claim could not be allowed under the general computation provision when the special gratuity provisions were not satisfied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70256</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>