https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277478 The judgment addressed issues concerning a pension scheme without a pension fund, the company's use of an insurance policy to cover pension payments, and the treatment of lump sum payments for annual business expenses. It clarified that pensioners had no direct recourse against the insurance company, and the company retained the right to revoke the policy. The court upheld the findings, dismissing the appeal and ordering costs to be paid, emphasizing the legal implications of the arrangements made by the company to fulfill its pension obligations. en-us Fri, 11 Mar 1932 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Dec 2018 12:22:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277478 The judgment addressed issues concerning a pension scheme without a pension fund, the company's use of an insurance policy to cover pension payments, and the treatment of lump sum payments for annual business expenses. It clarified that pensioners had no direct recourse against the insurance company, and the company retained the right to revoke the policy. The court upheld the findings, dismissing the appeal and ordering costs to be paid, emphasizing the legal implications of the arrangements made by the company to fulfill its pension obligations. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 11 Mar 1932 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277478