https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330342 The Court upheld the addition under Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, distinguishing between employees' and employer's contributions. The broader interpretation treating both contributions similarly was favored, resulting in a decision in favor of the assessee. Regarding the deduction of provision for gratuity under Section 40A(7), the Court confirmed the disallowance due to lack of evidence of contribution to an approved fund, leading to a decision against the assessee. The appeal was partly allowed, with the first issue decided in favor of the assessee and the second against. en-us Tue, 19 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330342 The Court upheld the addition under Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, distinguishing between employees' and employer's contributions. The broader interpretation treating both contributions similarly was favored, resulting in a decision in favor of the assessee. Regarding the deduction of provision for gratuity under Section 40A(7), the Court confirmed the disallowance due to lack of evidence of contribution to an approved fund, leading to a decision against the assessee. The appeal was partly allowed, with the first issue decided in favor of the assessee and the second against. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 19 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330342