9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (6) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to whether the assessee, a manufacturer of textiles which had failed to fulfil the conditions laid down in section 40A(7)(b)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is entitled to the benefit of the deduction of the amount actually remitted which fell far short of the amount required to be remitted to the approved gratuity fund, as a deduction. It is not in dispute that the assessee has not complied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1974-75 being covered by the payment of Rs. 5,20,000, deduction has been allowed for those two years. However, for the assessment year 1975-76, though the provision made was for Rs. 2,97,173, the amount that could be taken to have been remitted for that year amounted to only Rs. 40,978, that amount being the balance left after deducting the provisions for 1973-74 and 1974-75 from the sum of Rs. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 40A(7)(b)(ii) (1), (2) and (3). Sub-clause (3) of clause (ii) of section 40A(7)(b) of the Act requires that a sum equal to at least 50 per cent. of the admissible amount or where any amount utilised out of such provision for the purpose of payment of any gratuity is paid before April 1, 1976, the balance of the admissible amount reduced by the amount so utilised, is paid by the assessee b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the proper approach. The provisions of taxation laws are required to be complied with and cannot be a matter of bargain, with the assessee offering compliance in the manner convenient to him and yet claiming the benefit which is not permissible except in case of full and proper compliance. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
