TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 1342
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the assessee has made a payment to unapproved gratuity fund. Whereas the fact that the assessee had already applied to the CIT for the approval of gratuity scheme on 20th May 2011. The assessee has not received the approval from CIT till the date of assessment inspite of due follow-ups by the assessee. During the course of assessment the learned Addl. CIT has disallowed the entire contribution made to employees group gratuity cum life assurance scheme u/s 36(1)(v). He has done so just because actual approval to the group gratuity trust is not received from CIT. The same was affirmed by Id CIT (Appeals) - V, Pune. 2. The ld. CIT (Appeals) - V erred on facts and in law in concluding that the expenses of Rs. 16,88,394/- wrote off to Pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h Court of Punjab & Haryana in CIT Vs. Bitoni Lamps Ltd. reported in 227 ITR 396 (P&H). The Assessing Officer was of the view that the provisions of section 40A(7) of the Act would apply if the provision is made for payment for gratuity fund. However, in assessee's case, there was actual payment of gratuity fund and hence, provisions of section 40A(7) of the Act would not come into picture. The Assessing Officer applied the provisions of section 36(1)(v) of the Act which require such payment to be made to duly approved gratuity fund and since the assessee had not received approval from the Commissioner of Income Tax of the gratuity scheme, the said amount was disallowed and added back in the hands of assessee. 5. The CIT(A) upheld the orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., is that even otherwise, the said amount is to be allowed in the hands of assessee under section 37(1) of the Act. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in this regard, has placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hyderabad Bench of Tribunal in Capital IQ Information System (India) P. Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (supra). From the perusal of said decision, we find that reference is made to the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. D.V. Bapat, ITO (1975) 101 ITR 292 (Bom) and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Metal Box Company of India Ltd. Vs. The Workmen (1969) 73 ITR 53 (SC), wherein it has been held that the amount paid towards unapproved gratuity fund can be deducted under sectio....