9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (7) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ofessional actuary. A copy of the certificate was also furnished. It was also pointed out that the assessee has constituted a trust fund by a deed dt. 21st Nov, 1973 and has also entered into a contract with LIC under group gratuity scheme dt, 29th March 1973 which has also been approved by the CIT on 25th March, 1974 u/r 2(1) of Part C of the Fourth Schedule to the IT Act, 1961. In view of the pre-existing fund, which has been duly recognised by the CIT, and the actuarial liability, it was the assessee s case that the deduction in its entirety should be allowed. The disallowance was on the ground that the assessee had not complied with the requirements of s. 40A(7). The AAC confirmed the disallowance was on the ground that the s. 40A (7)(b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extent has to be considered in the light of the requirement of law and not with reference to the payment of premium only. It is all the more so, when, according to him, there is a pre-existing a fund, as in this case. Otherwise, he claimed that the approval becomes meaningless. At any rate, he pointed out that there was no reason for disallowing the amount of Rs. 66,482 paid as a premium as the contract of insurance was in force during the year. 4. We have carefully considered the records as well as the arguments. It is a matter of record that no provision was made in the account. This finding of fact by the AAC is not disputed before us. sec. 40A (7) bars the deduction of any liability towards gratuity unless, of course, the conditions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal in the assessments of M/s Kothari (Madras) Ltd., a sister concern in ITA Nos. 716 717 (Mds)/78-79, wherein we had held that considering the facts that the flats were used for the purposes of employees or the appellant-company for performance of their duties at Bombay in connection with sales and other business activities, these flats could not be treated as guest-houses, following the rationale of the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. Aruna Sugars Ltd. (1980) 123 ITR 619 (Mad). Following the same reasons we have to allow the appeal on this point. Relief due Rs. 11,460. 6. The next ground relates to the claim for development rebate of Rs. 14,40,468. This is a ground taken on abundant precaution inasmuch as the amount has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
