Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)Section 36 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 43B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 30 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 28 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 260A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Trivandrum vs M/S. Tranvancore Titanium Products Ltd on 7 December, 2000
2. For the assessment year 1998-99, the appellant filed a revised return declaring, an income of Rs. 1,15,76,566. The assesseds case before the assessing officer was that it had entered into an agreement with the Life Insurance Corporation of India and made contributions towards gratuity and superannuation funds for the benefit of its employees. An application made by the appellant to the Commissioner for approval of the fund under the Employees Group Gratuity Scheme (corporate and factory) had resulted in approval for the said fund with effect from 30-9-1998. A similar approval for superannuation scheme was also granted with effect from 14-10-1998. The appellants further case was that the contributions made by it were admissible deductions for the period ending 31-3-1998, which claim was rejected by the assessing officer on the ground that the contributions to an unapproved fund did not qualify for deduction under section 36(1)(iv) and 36(1)(v) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessed appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) who affirmed the view taken by the assessing officer. The Commissioner was of the view that the contributions could not be allowed as deductions even under section 37 of the Act. Relying upon Malwa Vanaspati and Chemical Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1985) 154 ITR 655 (MP), CIT v. Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. (No. 2) (1993) 203 ITR 714 (Ker) and Noshirwan and Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1970) 77 ITR 822 (MP), the Commissioner held that since gratuity and superannuation funds were specifically covered under section 36 of the Act, the same could not be considered as admissible deductions under section 37 which was a residuary provision applicable only in cases which do not fall under any one of the provisions of sections 30 to 36. A further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the order passed by the Commissioner having failed, the assessed has filed the present appeal, as already noticed earlier.
Malwa Vanaspati & Chemical Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 17 July, 1984
2. For the assessment year 1998-99, the appellant filed a revised return declaring, an income of Rs. 1,15,76,566. The assesseds case before the assessing officer was that it had entered into an agreement with the Life Insurance Corporation of India and made contributions towards gratuity and superannuation funds for the benefit of its employees. An application made by the appellant to the Commissioner for approval of the fund under the Employees Group Gratuity Scheme (corporate and factory) had resulted in approval for the said fund with effect from 30-9-1998. A similar approval for superannuation scheme was also granted with effect from 14-10-1998. The appellants further case was that the contributions made by it were admissible deductions for the period ending 31-3-1998, which claim was rejected by the assessing officer on the ground that the contributions to an unapproved fund did not qualify for deduction under section 36(1)(iv) and 36(1)(v) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessed appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) who affirmed the view taken by the assessing officer. The Commissioner was of the view that the contributions could not be allowed as deductions even under section 37 of the Act. Relying upon Malwa Vanaspati and Chemical Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1985) 154 ITR 655 (MP), CIT v. Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. (No. 2) (1993) 203 ITR 714 (Ker) and Noshirwan and Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1970) 77 ITR 822 (MP), the Commissioner held that since gratuity and superannuation funds were specifically covered under section 36 of the Act, the same could not be considered as admissible deductions under section 37 which was a residuary provision applicable only in cases which do not fall under any one of the provisions of sections 30 to 36. A further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the order passed by the Commissioner having failed, the assessed has filed the present appeal, as already noticed earlier.
Noshirwan And Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 18 February, 1969
2. For the assessment year 1998-99, the appellant filed a revised return declaring, an income of Rs. 1,15,76,566. The assesseds case before the assessing officer was that it had entered into an agreement with the Life Insurance Corporation of India and made contributions towards gratuity and superannuation funds for the benefit of its employees. An application made by the appellant to the Commissioner for approval of the fund under the Employees Group Gratuity Scheme (corporate and factory) had resulted in approval for the said fund with effect from 30-9-1998. A similar approval for superannuation scheme was also granted with effect from 14-10-1998. The appellants further case was that the contributions made by it were admissible deductions for the period ending 31-3-1998, which claim was rejected by the assessing officer on the ground that the contributions to an unapproved fund did not qualify for deduction under section 36(1)(iv) and 36(1)(v) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessed appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) who affirmed the view taken by the assessing officer. The Commissioner was of the view that the contributions could not be allowed as deductions even under section 37 of the Act. Relying upon Malwa Vanaspati and Chemical Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1985) 154 ITR 655 (MP), CIT v. Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. (No. 2) (1993) 203 ITR 714 (Ker) and Noshirwan and Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1970) 77 ITR 822 (MP), the Commissioner held that since gratuity and superannuation funds were specifically covered under section 36 of the Act, the same could not be considered as admissible deductions under section 37 which was a residuary provision applicable only in cases which do not fall under any one of the provisions of sections 30 to 36. A further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the order passed by the Commissioner having failed, the assessed has filed the present appeal, as already noticed earlier.
1