https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28122 An accrued and ascertained liability for gratuity was held deductible under the governing agricultural income-tax provision, and the deduction was not confined to actual payment. Section 5(k) of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act was treated as analogous to section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, while rule 5(d) was treated as corresponding to section 36(1)(v); on that basis, the Commissioner's view that gratuity could be allowed only on payment was rejected. The distinction between gratuity and provident fund liability was held immaterial in principle, and the revisional order disallowing the deduction was unsustainable. en-us Wed, 14 Mar 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Feb 2010 11:40:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28122 An accrued and ascertained liability for gratuity was held deductible under the governing agricultural income-tax provision, and the deduction was not confined to actual payment. Section 5(k) of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act was treated as analogous to section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, while rule 5(d) was treated as corresponding to section 36(1)(v); on that basis, the Commissioner's view that gratuity could be allowed only on payment was rejected. The distinction between gratuity and provident fund liability was held immaterial in principle, and the revisional order disallowing the deduction was unsustainable. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 14 Mar 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28122