Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)The Major Port Trusts Act, 1963
The Employees’ Provident Funds And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
Gestetner Duplicators (Pvt.) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 14 December, 1978
The Andhra Pradesh High Court
relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Gestetner Duplicators (P) Ltd. v. CIT
(1979) 117 ITRI, where the Supreme Court while considering the approved
provident fund held that if the provident fund contravenes any of the conditions to
be satisfied for its recognition, the taxing authority may refer the question of
withdrawal of recognition to the Commissioner, but until the Commissioner acting
under the powers reserved to him withdraws such recognition, the taxing authority
must proceed on the basis that the provident fund has satisfied all the conditions
for its recognition in that year, any other course is bound to result in chaos and
uncertainty which has to be avoided."
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Salem vs M/S Sugavaneeshwara Spg.Mills Ltd on 16 November, 2009
7. Our attention has been drawn to a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court
in CIT v. Super Spg. Mills Lad [1987] 166 ITR 518. In that case also the ITO
restricted the claim of the assessee towards contribution to the gratuity fund to 819
per cent but the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal held that it was not for
the ITO to sit in judgment over the approval granted by the Commissioner. It has
been held that once approval is accorded by the Commissioner, it is binding on the
assessing authority or the AAC and the authorities administering the provisions of
the Act, have no power to go behind the approval granted by the Commissioner.
Once the Commissioner accords approval, it is binding on the assessing authority
and the assessing authority is devoid of power and jurisdiction to go behind the
permission to find out whether the contribution made by the assessee is in
conformity with the rules or in excess thereof.
1