Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.22 seconds)
Sherston Educational Software Private ... vs Assessee on 3 June, 2013 cites

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:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 51 - Full Document

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."
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 301 - S Mukharji - Full Document

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.
Karnataka High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 70 - Full Document

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.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1