9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 1331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and ₹ 34,027 (assessment year 1976-77) on account of death-cum-retirement gratuity under section 37 or any other provision of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Common in RA Nos : 420 421/JP/1981 : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and the material on record, the assessee is entitled to the deduction of the amounts of ₹ 45,936 (assessment year 1974-75) and ₹ 5,208 (assessment year 1975-76) received from the Salt Department, Government of India as contribution and liability for the amount of pension payable to the retiring persons who were absorbed by the assessee-company as per their service conditions with the Salt Department, Government of India ? 3. Common Question in RA Nos. : 421 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Provident Fund Commissioner, but was kept in the Post Office under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? The assessee M/s. Hindustan Salts Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act. The assessment years involved are 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77. The assessee company is a Public Limited Company and an enterprise of the Government of India prior to 1959. The assessee company was incorporated in the year 1958. It commenced its business w.e.f. 1-1-1959 with the transfer of the control of salt sources from the Salt Department, Government of India. The staff of the Salt sources handed-over was also transferred to the company. The assessee company created a Trust on 17-4-1976 w.e.f 1-10-1975. The Trustees of the Hindustan Salts Limited, Non-p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of such facts, the assessee cannot successfully claim the deduction of ₹ 1,71,307. 9. The another alternative contention of the assessee that the claim may be allowed under general provision namely section 37 of the Act, 1961 also can hardly be accepted, for allowing such a claim specific provision has been given in the Act in section 40A(7) of the Act. If the assessee fulfills the conditions laid down in the said provision, then and only then such claim can be allowed. Under the circumstances, the assessee cannot take shelter under general provision namely section 37 of the Act, 1961. It is settled law by now that specific provision overrides the general provision. 10. Looking to the aforesaid facts, in our opinion, the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t amount has been contributed in the fund nor the superannuation fund has been created. The deduction has been allowed on the basis of actual payment against the pensionary or superannuation benefits to the employees that has been allowed. The disallowance also has been made to the tune of ₹ 6,418. Assessee has claimed that he has contributed this amount to the Provident Fund Commissioner but Tribunal found that the amount could not be paid to the Provident Fund Commissioner as there was a dispute as to whether Himachal Pradesh falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Provident Fund Commissioner of Chandigarh or not and there was no Provident Fund Commissioner in the Himachal Pradesh. Therefore there is no question of allowing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nswer that assessee is not entitled for the amount of rupees referred in question No. 4. So is the case in question Nos. 5 and 7 that neither the amount has been paid nor contributed in the fund. Assessee is not entitled for deduction of the amount claimed. We answer question Nos. 5 and 7 in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In question No. 8, the finding of the fact regarding amount of ₹ 12,467 by the Tribunal is that the amount has not been paid to the Provident Fund Commissioner, but was kept in the Post Office, assessee cannot claim deduction against the payment of gratuity fund or pension superannuating fund assessee is not entitled for deduction. W find no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal and answer this q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
