Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.23 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]
Travancore Titanium Products Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala on 17 January, 1966
2. For the asst. yr. 1998-99, the appellant filed a revised return declaring an income of Rs. 1,15.76,566. The assessed's case before the AO was that it had entered into an agreement with the LIC of India and made contributions towards gratuity and superannuation funds for the benefit of its employees. An application made by the appellant to the CIT for approval of the fund under the Employees Group Gratuity Scheme (corporate and factory) had resulted in approval for the said fund w.e.f. 30th Sept., 1998. A similar approval for superannuation scheme was also granted w.e.f. 14th Oct., 1998. The appellant's further case was that the contributions made by it were admissible deductions for the period ending 31st March, 1998, which claim was rejected by the AO on the ground that the contributions to an unapproved fund did not qualify for deduction under Sections 36(1)(iv) and 36(1)(v) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessed appealed to the CIT(A) who affirmed the view taken by the AO. The CIT(A) was of the view that the contributions could not be allowed as deductions even under Section 37 of the Act. Relying upon Malwa Vanaspati & Chemical Co. Ltd. v. CIT CIT v. Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. and Noshirwan & Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT , the CIT(A) 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 Tribunal against the order passed by the CIT(A) 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 asst. yr. 1998-99, the appellant filed a revised return declaring an income of Rs. 1,15.76,566. The assessed's case before the AO was that it had entered into an agreement with the LIC of India and made contributions towards gratuity and superannuation funds for the benefit of its employees. An application made by the appellant to the CIT for approval of the fund under the Employees Group Gratuity Scheme (corporate and factory) had resulted in approval for the said fund w.e.f. 30th Sept., 1998. A similar approval for superannuation scheme was also granted w.e.f. 14th Oct., 1998. The appellant's further case was that the contributions made by it were admissible deductions for the period ending 31st March, 1998, which claim was rejected by the AO on the ground that the contributions to an unapproved fund did not qualify for deduction under Sections 36(1)(iv) and 36(1)(v) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessed appealed to the CIT(A) who affirmed the view taken by the AO. The CIT(A) was of the view that the contributions could not be allowed as deductions even under Section 37 of the Act. Relying upon Malwa Vanaspati & Chemical Co. Ltd. v. CIT CIT v. Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. and Noshirwan & Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT , the CIT(A) 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 Tribunal against the order passed by the CIT(A) having failed, the assessed has filed the present appeal, as already noticed earlier.
1