https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402607 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer regarding the payment to unapproved gratuity funds managed by third parties. The Tribunal found that the money had genuinely left the assessee's possession permanently, supporting previous judgments allowing similar claims. Consequently, both the revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-appeal were dismissed. Another Tribunal member clarified the interpretation of section 36(1)(v) of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the irrevocable nature of the trust and criticizing the Assessing Officer's vague reasoning for disallowing the deduction. The consistent application of relevant provisions and case law led to the allowance of the deduction for the disputed sum. en-us Thu, 31 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Jan 2021 15:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402607 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer regarding the payment to unapproved gratuity funds managed by third parties. The Tribunal found that the money had genuinely left the assessee's possession permanently, supporting previous judgments allowing similar claims. Consequently, both the revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-appeal were dismissed. Another Tribunal member clarified the interpretation of section 36(1)(v) of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the irrevocable nature of the trust and criticizing the Assessing Officer's vague reasoning for disallowing the deduction. The consistent application of relevant provisions and case law led to the allowance of the deduction for the disputed sum. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 31 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402607