AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 542
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmon order dated 22.02.2018, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai (for brevity, "the Tribunal"), in I.T.A.No.1830/Mds/2016, for the assessment year 2012- 13; I.T.A.No.1714/Mds/2017, for the assessment year 2010-11; and I.T.A.No.580/Mds/2016, for the assessment year 2009-10 respectively. 2.The Revenue has raised the following three substantial questions of law in all the appeals:- "(i) Whether the ITAT is correct in law in holding that explanation 6 to section 43(6) is applicable for the assessment year 2008-09 instead of the assessment year 2002-03? (ii) Whether the ITAT is correct in law in holding that the assessee need not compute the depreciation as per section 32(1) of the Income T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arise for consideration, since the matter has been remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. Therefore, the first and second substantial questions of law are not answered and are left open. 6.The third substantial question of law is pertaining to whether the expenditure incurred by the respondent/assessee is allowable under Section 37(1) of the Act, even after allowing expenditure under Section 36(1)(iv) and (v) of the Act. 7.It is the submission of Mr.M.Swaminathan that Section 36(1) of the Act states that deductions provided for in sub-Clauses (i) to (xvi) under sub-Section (1) of Section 36 shall be allowed in respect of the matters dealt with therein, in computing the income referred to in Section 28 of the Act. It is subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the nature described in Sections 30 to 36 and Section 80VV and not being in the nature of a capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee, laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "profit and gains of business or profession". 11.It is the submission of the learned counsel that deduction has already been claimed under Section 36(1)(iv) and (v) of the Act and therefore, the question of claiming deduction under Section 37(1) does not arise and the Assessing Officer was justified in not allowing the same. This issue was considered by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Madurai (for brevity, "the CIT(A)")....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the same was incurred for the purpose of business. 13.It is further contended that the contribution to the approved superannuation fund and gratuity fund is allowable as deduction under the specific provisions of the Act and the same were utilized only for paying commutation pension and gratuity to the retired employees. It is further contended that the assessee did not claim the same amount as deduction twice and the claim is in accordance with the provisions of the Act and merely because the assessee is claiming deduction in respect of approved superannuation fund and gratuity fund, the Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the claim of pension payments which represents the actual monthly pension payments made to the retir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oyees under Section 37 because, it has not been routed through the recognised post trust pension fund. This contention was considered by the Tribunal and was rejected. The finding rendered by the Tribunal is contained in paragraph 16. 16.We approve the said finding of the Tribunal for the following reasons. Admittedly, the Revenue has not disputed the fact that there is an approved gratuity fund created by the employer, viz., the respondent/assessee and the payment made towards such fund to the expenditure of Rs. 20 crore was allowed as a deduction. The deduction of the sum of Rs. 23.28 crores is sought to be denied on the ground that it was not routed through the pension fund. This contention raised by the Revenue is liable to be reject....