Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.04 seconds)Commnr. Of Income Tax, Coimbatore vs M/S. Textool Co. Ltd on 9 September, 2009
In our opinion,
decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Textool Co. Ltd.
8 I.T.A. Nos. 1866 & 1867/Mds/12
(supra), relied on by the learned A.R., does not change the scenario
any way. In the said case before Hon'ble Apex Court, the payments,
which were made to LIC under a Group Gratuity Scheme, was finally
made over to a Gratuity Fund, which was approved by CIT. Hon'ble
Apex Court held at para 6 of its judgment dated 9.9.2009, as under:-
Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, M.P. Bhopal ... on 8 October, 1985
"6. Having considered the matter in the light of the background
facts, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal.
True that a fiscal statute is to be construed strictly and nothing
should be added or subtracted to the language employed in the
Section, yet a strict construction 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. Commissioner of Income
Tax, M.P. & Anr. (1985) 156 ITR 585). From a bare 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 assessee and further all the contribution made
by the assessee in the said fund ultimately came back to the
Textool Employees Gratuity Fund, approved by the Commissioner
with effect from the following previous year. Thus, the conditions
stipulated in Section 36(1)(v) of the Act were satisfied. Having
regard to the facts found by the Commissioner and affirmed by
the Tribunal, no fault can be found with the opinion expressed by
the High Court, warranting our interference."
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Yokogawa India Ltd, on 9 August, 2011
25. We have perused the orders and heard the rival submissions.
There is no dispute that assessee had produced FIRC for receipt of
sale proceeds in foreign currency to the extent of ` 4,04,75,670/-.
Disallowance of the claim was made for the sole reason that
assessee was unable to file FIRC in support of the total export
proceeds of ` 4,92,05,590/-. Observation of the A.O. that assessee
should have set off the loss of its unit in Chennai against the profits of
its unit in Trivandrum before claiming deduction under Section 10B is,
in our opinion, not justified in view of the decision of Hon'ble
Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. (341
ITR 385). Further, in our opinion, if the assessee is able to produce
FIRC for whole of the receipts on account of export proceeds, it will
be unfair to deny the claim made by it under Section 10B of the Act.
In the fitness of the things, we are of the opinion that the matter
requires a fresh look by the Assessing Officer. We set aside the
orders of authorities below and remit the issue back to the file of the
12 I.T.A. Nos. 1866 & 1867/Mds/12
A.O. for fresh consideration. If the assessee is able to produce FIRC
in support of export proceeds realized by it, then such claim has to be
allowed.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Coimbatore Premier Corporation (P.) ... on 21 April, 1998
18. We have perused the orders and heard the rival submissions.
There is no dispute that premium towards Gratuity Fund was paid by
the assessee to LIC and the Gratuity Fund created by LIC by virtue of
such payments, was not having the approval of CIT/CCIT under
Section 36(1)(v) of the Act. Nevertheless, it is also a fact that
assessee had filed an application before CIT for such approval on
12.4.2002. No doubt, in the case of Coimbatore Premier Corporation
(P) Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court had held that in the
absence of approval of the fund by Chief CIT or CIT, or in other
words, unless there was strict compliance to Section 40A(7), an
assessee could not claim for relief any amount or payment of
premium to M/s LIC for any Group Gratuity Scheme.
1