1993 (2) TMI 61

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Revenue is the petitioner herein. The original respondent was an unregistered firm an assessee to income-tax. We are concerned with the assessment year 1975-76. Since the firm stood dissolved, additional respondents Nos. 2 to 6 have been impleaded as parties in the original petition. The accounting period ended on March 31, 1975. During the previous year which ended on March 31, 1975, the assesse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Gemini Cashew Sales Corporation [1967] 65 ITR 643, the deduction is impermissible. As regards gratuity, the Appellate Tribunal took the view that it was different in character. It was further held that the liability to pay gratuity is not a liability that accrues to an employer only at one point of time, viz., when the liability is to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y liability and the Tribunal is right in deleting the addition made by the Income tax Officer ?" It is thereafter that the Revenue has filed this petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act to refer the above question of law for the decision of this court. We heard counsel. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, in paragraph 6 of its order dated March 26, 1982, held thus : ". . . .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nsider that the accrual of this liability to the assessee and the closure of the business are just two events that have happened at the same time though it may not be considered to be just a coincidence. We feel that the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Standard Furniture Co. Ltd. [1979] 116 ITR 751 [FB], cannot be distinguished in the manner in which it has been distinguish....