9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of the term "admissible amount" for gratuity deduction under section 40A(7)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Validity of the direction given by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the calculation of gratuity deduction. Analysis: The judgment of the High Court of Gujarat pertained to the interpretation of the term "admissible amount" for the purpose of gratuity deduction under section 40A(7)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court was presented with two questions referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76. The first question revolved around determining whether the admissible amount for gratuity deduction should not exceed 8-1/3 per cent of the salary of employees for each year of service. The second question queried whether the Tribunal was correct in reversing the Commissioner of Income-tax's order and reinstating the Income-tax Officer's decision. The Tribunal had directed the Commissioner to calculate the gratuity amount for deduction based on actuarial valuation as per Explanation 1 to section 40A(7)(b) of the Income-tax Act. The court analyzed Explanation 1 under section 40A(7)(b), which defined the "admissible amount" as the provision made by the assessee for gratuity payment to employees, not exceeding 8-1/3 per cent of each employee's salary for each year of service. The court clarified that the 8-1/3 per cent limit applied to each employee for each year of service for which the provision was made. Therefore, the total admissible amount could be calculated by multiplying 8-1/3 per cent by the number of years of service. The judgment emphasized that this calculation was subject to Explanation 2 and other conditions specified in section 40A(7)(b)(ii), including making provisions based on actuarial valuation and ascertainable liability. The court highlighted a specific condition that required at least fifty per cent of the admissible amount to be contributed to an approved gratuity fund by the assessee before specific dates. The judgment concluded that the Tribunal's direction regarding the calculation of gratuity deduction was not erroneous. Consequently, both questions were answered in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference was disposed of with no order as to costs.
|
