9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction for the contribution of Rs. 6,99,566/- made to an unapproved gratuity fund. (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding contribution of Rs. 7,57,974/- to State Renewal Fund as allowable expenditure. 2.1 The ld. DR is heard. 2.2 The ld. Counsel for the assessee contends that the above grounds are covered in favour of the assessee by the order of this Bench for which the ld. AR has relied on the following orders of this Bench . (i) Order dated 21-08-2009 in ITA No. 307/JP/2009 in the case of ACIT vs. M/s. Rajasthan State Seeds Corporation Ltd. Jaipur. (ii) Order dated 16-07-2010 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has decided this issue in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2006-07 in favour of the assessee vide its order dated 21-08-2009 in ITA No. 307/JP/2009 by following observations. ''Ground No.1 : The ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 7,89,745/- made on account of disallowance of contribution made to LIC Group gratuity fund holding the same to be unapproved by prescribed authority. 2. We have heard the parties. The brief facts are that the AO held that assessee has claimed to have applied for approval of LIC Group Gratuity Fund on 31.03.1981 and even after a long lapse of time, the approval has not been granted. Thus the assesee's group gratuity scheme has not been approved. As per section 36( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of ACIT vs. Rajasthan State Road Development Construction Corporation Ltd. vide its order dated 16-07- 2010 in ITA No. 919/JP/2009 by following observations and this issue is covered in favour of the assessee. ''4. The second issue on which the Revenue is aggrieved is against the deletion of addition of Rs. 10 lakhs on account of payment as contribution to state renewal fund. This issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in AY 2006-07 vide order dated 26.2.2010 in ITA No.754/JP/2009. It will be useful to reproduce paragraph 5 from that decision:- "5. We have considered the submissions of the parties. We find that the issue under consideration is squarely covered by the decision of ITAT in case of Rajast ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
