1998 (9) TMI 2

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 9,75,485 was allowable as a deduction with reference to the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, read with section 2(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provision made for contribution of Rs. 1,03,251 towards the provident fund maintained by the Government of Tamil Nadu on account of Government employees sent on deputation to the assessee-corporation is an allowable deduction in computing its income?" We shall consider the questions referred to us at the instance of the Revenue before we proceed to consider the questions referred to us at the instance of the assessee. The first....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he ground that the benefits available to the employees under that scheme were no less than those available under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act. The order granting exemption from the provisions of the Act, cannot be treated as an order recognising the scheme as one framed under the Act. The very object of exemption granted under section 17 of the Employees Provident Funds Act is to render the scheme immune from the application of the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed while granting such exemption. The scheme referred to in section 2(38) of the Income-tax Act is a scheme either framed under the Employees Provident Funds Act, or a scheme approved by the C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....under section 37 of the Act, being part of the business expenditure of the assessee. This question is therefore answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The questions referred to us at the instance of the assessee are: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that a sum of Rs. 82,500 paid towards unexpired portion of the route permit was not a revenue expenditure? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the payment of Rs. 3,50,000 to the Chief Minister's Drought Relief Fund was not an allowable deduction?" The first of these questions is covered against the assessee b....