https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27600 The court upheld the decision of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) in rejecting the assessee's claim for a deduction of the sum paid as gratuity liability as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal found that the transferred amount was a provision and did not meet the conditions under s. 40A(7) for gratuity liability. Citing relevant precedents, the court dismissed the petition for reference as the transfer did not constitute a charge on profits for the year, ultimately denying the deduction claimed by the assessee. en-us Tue, 05 Apr 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Feb 2010 17:40:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27600 The court upheld the decision of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) in rejecting the assessee's claim for a deduction of the sum paid as gratuity liability as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal found that the transferred amount was a provision and did not meet the conditions under s. 40A(7) for gratuity liability. Citing relevant precedents, the court dismissed the petition for reference as the transfer did not constitute a charge on profits for the year, ultimately denying the deduction claimed by the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 05 Apr 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27600