2016 (2) TMI 1315

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r, Advocate ORDER PER N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER The Revenue filed the present miscellaneous petition on the ground that there is an error in the order of this Tribunal dated 21.8.2015. 2. Shri P. Radhakrishnan, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee misrepresented the facts before this Tribunal by placing reliance on the judgment of the Madras High Court in CIT vs Ka....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... DR submitted that the judgment of the Madras High Court in Kattabomman Transport Corporation Ltd(supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. At the best, the claim could be allowed in respect of the contribution made by the assessee in respect of 50 employees. On a query from the Bench what is the basis for allowing contribution in respect of 50 employees, the ld. DR could not cla....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re, whatever contribution made by the assessee has to be allowed either in terms of sec. 36(1)(iv) or 36(1)(v) of the Act or atleast u/s 37 of the Act. This is what the Tribunal has done after placing reliance on the judgment of the Madras High Court in Kattabomman Transport Corporation Ltd(supra). Therefore, there is no question of any misrepresentation of facts. 4. We have considered the rival ....