Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: scheme defined in G.Pandiyan vs The Bharathidasan InstituteMatching Fragments
5. According to the first respondent - Institute, the Board of Governors of the Bharathidasan Institute of Management Society (Autonomous), in its 47th meeting held on 09.09.2000, vide resolution No.47.2, had decided to introduce, under their discretion, a superannuation pension scheme called as “Defined Contribution Scheme” for the benefit of teaching and non-teaching staff of the first respondent – Institute, who have completed _______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ten years of service as a welfare measure. But, according to the first respondent – Institute, contrary to the said resolution passed by the Board of Governors, a scheme known as “Defined Benefit Scheme” was introduced by means of a Trust Deed dated 30.03.2002, registered as document No.370 of 2003.
6. According to first respondent – Institute, if the earlier scheme is not amended, it would amount to violation of Rules 87 and 88 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 in making ordinary annual contribution and also initial contribution for the past service to the Defined Benefit Superannuation Fund, by incorporating an enabling provision in note (a) under clause 7(A)(i) & (ii) under Section II of the Rules in the Trust Deed providing for contribution over and above the maximum ceiling of 27% of salary including the contribution towards provident fund permissible under the income tax law. According to the first respondent – Institute, this enabling provision made in the Trust Deed is in violation of the income tax law and as such, the contributions already made in excess of 27% of salary to the fund have become invalid and also the above enabling provision made in the Trust Deed to contribute over and above the permissible limit of 27% of salary becomes void ab initio from the date of _______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis introduction of the enabling provision in the above Trust Deed dated 30.03.2002, necessitating an amendment to the Trust Deed by converting the existing Defined Benefit Scheme into the Defined Contributory Scheme with consequential changes for facilitating the operation of the Defined Contributory Scheme as originally approved by the Board.
7. According to the first respondent – Institute, violation of law under the Old Pension Scheme is so serious, which may even warrant, de- recognition of the Employees Superannuation Scheme, by the Income Tax Department, under Rules 87 and 88 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, with penal consequences. According to the first respondent – Institute, only in order to prevent any possible de-recognition of the Bharathidasan Institute of Management Employees' Superannuation Scheme with penal consequences, a meeting of the 13 members in service was convened by the Director of the third respondent - Institute, as a Trustee of the Fund, on 03.09.2014 and only 11 members attended the meeting, except Mr.Kanagasundaram and Mr.Prabhakaran. During the meeting, the Director explained the serious violation of law in the implementation of the previous Superannuation Scheme of the third respondent - Institute and explained that unless the violations are _______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis rectified by introduction of the Defined Contribution Scheme, which is already approved by the Board, in place of the Defined Benefit Scheme, which was wrongly, introduced in repugnance to the original Board's decision and consequential regulation of the contribution, within the allowed limit by expressly obtaining the extent of contribution to the scheme from the Board, there is a possibility for the Income Tax Department to de-recognise the Superannuation Scheme for the employees of the first respondent – Institute, resulting in loss of the benefits even under the Defined Contribution Scheme.
_______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. According to the first respondent – Institute, the Income Tax Department was also requested with a plea to consider the whole case sympathetically and ignore the violation that had crept in the implementation of the schemes and grant approval for the implementation of the Defined Contribution Scheme retrospectively, in place of the Defined Benefit Scheme, in the best interest of the members of the scheme, without resorting to any penalty whatsoever for the violation. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai-34, allowed the implementation of the Defined Contribution Scheme with consequential amendments retrospectively from 30.03.2002, in his letter dated 09.03.2015.