TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 583
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,004/- for the reason that the gratuity fund was unapproved by the Learned Pr. CIT. The I.T Authorities ought to have appreciated that the appellant has applied for approval of the Gratuity Fund Scheme on 14th August 2008 and got approval from the learned Pr. CIT on 6th March, 2017 and delay was not attributable to the appellant. 2. The learned AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A)-8, Pune ought to have appreciated that payment made to gratuity fund cannot be denied simply because there was delay on part of concern authority in provision of statutory approval required under the IT Act, 1961 though application for approval was made well within time. 3. Alternative and without prejudice to the ground No.1 and 2 above, the learned AO as well as lea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as complied with provisions of section 2(5) of the IT Act 1961. Under these circumstances ground No.1 of the appeal is dismissed." On the basis of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals), the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee has applied for approval to the Pr. CIT on 14.08.2008. However, the same was approved by Pr CIT only on 06.03.2017. Despite acknowledging the decision of the Pr.CIT to this effect, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has not allowed the claim of the assessee u/s.36(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act‟) as the order passed by the authority was w.e.f 06.03.2017 only . 2.1 The Ld.AR of the assessee relied on the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the matter of Spon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction of a provision does not rule out the application of the principles of reasonable construction to give effect to the purpose and intention of any particular provision of the Act. (See: Shri Sajjan Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT, M.P. & Anr., [1985] 156 ITR 585). From a bare a reading of section 36(1)(v) of the Act, it is manifest that the real intention behind the provision is that the employer should not have any control over the funds of the irrevocable trust created exclusively for the benefit of the employees. In the instant case, it is evident from the findings recorded by the Commissioner and affirmed by the Tribunal that the assessee had absolutely no control over the fund created by the LIC for the benefit of the employees of the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Though principles are resjudicata does not apply to a taxing statute but nevertheless rule of consistency is also required to be maintained. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we hold that the payment of Rs. 1,82,22,000/- to LIC towards gratuity of the employees is an allowable deduction and accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to allow the same. The ground raised by the assessee is allowed." 2.2 During the course of argument, the Ld. AR of the assessee has also drawn our attention to the decisions of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jaipur Thar Gramin Bank (2017) 81 taxmann.com 126 (Rajasthan) and in the matter of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajasthan State Seed Corporation Lt....