https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765403 ITAT Kolkata ruled in favor of the assessee on three issues. First, excess contributions to approved superannuation fund to bridge actuarial valuation gaps were allowed as deductions, being one-time payments under peculiar circumstances rather than regular contributions subject to ceiling limits. Second, excess contributions to approved gratuity fund were similarly permitted, following precedent that approved funds retain recognition until formally withdrawn by Commissioner. Third, disallowance under section 36(1)(va) for delayed provident fund deposits was deleted, as regulations specified no due date and actual deposits occurred within reasonable time. Revenue's appeals were dismissed on all counts. en-us Mon, 18 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 31 Jan 2025 07:54:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765403 ITAT Kolkata ruled in favor of the assessee on three issues. First, excess contributions to approved superannuation fund to bridge actuarial valuation gaps were allowed as deductions, being one-time payments under peculiar circumstances rather than regular contributions subject to ceiling limits. Second, excess contributions to approved gratuity fund were similarly permitted, following precedent that approved funds retain recognition until formally withdrawn by Commissioner. Third, disallowance under section 36(1)(va) for delayed provident fund deposits was deleted, as regulations specified no due date and actual deposits occurred within reasonable time. Revenue's appeals were dismissed on all counts. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 18 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765403