9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 985X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n for the unexpired period as per the un-amended provision. - First question decided against the revenue. Contribution to the fund which was held unconstitutional - Held that:- We find that the Honourable Supreme Court while declaring the Fund to be unconstitutional also directed that the amount of contributions already paid will not be liable to be refunded to the contributors. In such circumstances, there is no question of a refund to the assessee and as found by the Tribunal, when the contributions were made, there was a valid fund created. The contribution so made to the Fishermen's Welfare Fund Board having not been refunded as specifically interdicted by the Honourable Supreme Court, the same would also be employed for the welfare of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... follows: "3. Whether the assessee is entitled to the deduction on contributions paid towards Fishermen's Welfare Fund, which Fund was declared unconstitutional by the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in AIR 2002 SC 973 [Koluthara Exports Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Others]. 3. The decision cited by the Revenue in Choice Trading Corporation Ltd. (supra) makes it very clear that processing of prawns by IQF is not a manufacture or production; which was a declaration made in the context of a claim under Section 80I of the Act. The distinction attempted by the learned counsel for the assessee herein is that the proviso which accompanied the substituted provision under sub-Section (1) of Section 10A makes it clear that the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the first question of law in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In view of the answer we have given to question No.1, we are of the opinion that question No.2 need not be answered; which issue is answered by another Division Bench, which we follow. The question remaining is with respect to the deduction, insofar as the contribution made to the Fishermen's Welfare Fund. The Fund itself was declared unconstitutional by a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court as cited hereinabove. We find that the Honourable Supreme Court while declaring the Fund to be unconstitutional also directed that the amount of contributions already paid will not be liable to be refunded to the contributors. In such circumstances, there is no que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
