9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (11) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was in respect of employees drawing salary in excess of Rs. 1,000 per month and, therefore, the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 did not apply to them and hence such deduction could not be allowed. This view was also upheld by the CIT(A). 2. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee took me through the Scheme of the E.P.F. Act. We have also heard the learned departmental representative, who opposed the claim for deduction based on the reasons which weighed with the ITO. Admittedly, each of the directors was getting a salary in excess of Rs. 1,000 per month. Admittedly also the establishment was one to which the E.P.F. Act applied. Section 5 of the E.P.F. Act empowered the Central Govt. to frame a Scheme for the working of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of discretion by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. Correspondence has been filed with us to show that regular contributions were being made on the basis of joint declaration submitted in respect of the Managing Director. On 2-7-1979 by a letter sent by the Accounts Officer, office of the Regional Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund, there was a defect pointed out of which rectification was requested for. In this letter it was stated as under : " The Joint Declaration executed by M.O.H. Iqbal one of the Managing Director of the Company should be countersigned by another Director of the company who is authorised to sign all Employees' Provident Fund and Family Pension Fund documents. On receipt of the Declaration necessary act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in Part A of the Fourth Schedule, and includes a provident fund established under a scheme framed under the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). " Therefore, all the requisite criteria are satisfied. The deductions claimed have to be allowed and we direct accordingly. 3. There is one other ground urged for the assessment year 1980-81, viz., that certain disallowances made invoking the provisions of sec. 37(3A) should be allowed. However, this ground was not pressed at the hearing. 4. For the assessment year 1981-82 there was a similar ground. It was stated that the question of disallowance of Rs. 6,107 u/s 37(3A) did not arise because the provisions itself stood omitted with effect from 1-4-1981. This is correct. The l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
