9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of the letter dated 25.08.1976 would indicate that apparently no express approval by the Provident Fund Commissioner to the scheme formulated by the assessee had been actually taken into account by the income tax authorities at the relevant time but in 12 successive assessments, the authorities accepted its position that the scheme was a recognized one - As the tax implication in the present case is far below the prescribed limit of Rs. 10 Lakh as the demand or disallowance itself was Rs. 9,08,359/- and the tax payable on that would be roughly around 1/3rd of the said amount the Court is of the opinion that no interference is called for the appeal is consequently dismissed. - ITA 419/2012 - - - Dated:- 27-8-2012 - MR. JUSTICE S. RA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade towards provident fund. It was held that the fund though administered by the Trust was unrecognized. The assessee carried the matter in appeal to CIT (A) which was partly allowed. 3. Both the assessee and the Revenue, therefore, filed the appeals before the ITAT. The ITAT allowed the assessee s appeal and dismissed the Revenue s appeal. The Revenue claims to be aggrieved against the said two questions. 4. As far as the first question, i.e., claim for depreciation on account of car parking space is concerned, the question stands covered by the decision of Supreme Court in Mysore Minerals case reported 239 ITR 775 (SC). That question is, therefore, answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. 5. The Court notices that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contributions, the Provident Fund Trust or scheme must conform to at either of the three specifications i.e. it must be either a scheme framed by virtue of the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952; or a scheme framed by the employer but with the approval of the Provident Fund Commissioner or lastly a scheme approved by the income tax authorities in terms of the Fourth Schedule to the Act. Facially, a reading of the letter dated 25.08.1976 would indicate that apparently no express approval by the Provident Fund Commissioner to the scheme formulated by the assessee had been actually taken into account by the income tax authorities at the relevant time. The assessee is undoubtedly correct in contending that in 12 successive assessments, the aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
