9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1026X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yees. Having made the payments to the SBI Life Cap Assured Gold Superannuation Scheme and the Superannuation Fund of the company was approved by CIT subsequently, we hold that the decision of this Tribunal in the case of The District Co-operative Central Bank (supra) and the decision of Hon ble apex court is equally applies to the assessee s case also and accordingly we hold that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/sec. 36(1)(iv) r.w.s. 43B of the Act. As during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had examined the issue and taken a conscience decision for allowing deduction. The assessee placed a copy of note filed before the Assessing Officer. DR did not place any evidence to support that note was not pla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct. He ought to have considered that the provisions of section 43B does not require the Fund to be recognized for the admissibility of the deduction. 3. The ld. Pr. CIT erred in ordering revision u/s. 263 treating the Assessment Order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue holding that the assessee is not entitled to the deduction of ₹ 10,79,71,880/- representing Employer‟s contribution towards Superannuation Fund as the same was not recognized by the CIT on the relevant period of time. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal. 3. All the grounds of appeal are related to the order passed by the ld. Pr.CIT u/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the assessment made u/sec.143(3), dated 30/12/2016 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Accordingly, set aside the assessment order with a direction to redo the assessment after examining the issues mentioned in the show-cause notice and giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The ld. Pr.CIT while passing the order u/sec. 263 has relied on the following decisions:- i) P. Ramgopal Varma Vs. Addl. CIT [(2014) 47 taxmann.com 334 (Hyd. Trib.)] ii) CIT Vs. Usha Kiran Movies Ltd., [(2014) 48 taxmann.com 364 (AP)] iii) Addl. CIT Vs. Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation [(1981) 5 Taxman 54 (Kar.)] iv) CIT Vs. Premier Cotton Spinning M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its also argued that the employees contribution towards Superannuation Fund is allowable u/sec. 36(1)(iv) on payment basis. The courts have held that superannuation contributions made to the LIC and the banks are allowable since, there is no control of the assessee on the superannuation scheme of LIC and the banks. The ld.AR relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Textool Company Ltd. [(2013) 35 taxmann.com 639 (SC)]. Ld.AR further argued that the ITAT, Visakhapatnam Bench in the case of The District Co-operative Central Bank Vs. ITO in ITA No. 49 50/VIZ/2012, dated 25/01/2018 taken a similar view and allowed the deduction claimed by the assessee for unapproved gratuity fund paid to the LIC. Therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ook. The amount was intended for the purpose of benefit of the employees superannuation fund. The assessee has applied for approval of the Superannuation Fund to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad on 10/06/2014 which was approved by the Commissioner on 05/01/2017 w.e.f. 29/05/2014. Having accorded approval for Superannuation Fund created by the assessee complying with the statutory provisions and within the norms of the Act and there is no violation as far as Superannuation Fund set up by the Board of the assessee company. The assessee has created Superannuation Fund for the benefit of the employees as per the Board Resolution dated 25/11/2013 and the employees who are on the rolls on 25th November, 2013 are eligible for this scheme. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the employer should not have any control over the funds of the irrevocable trust created exclusively for the benefit of the employees. In the instant case, it is evident from the findings recorded by the Commissioner and affirmed by the Tribunal that the assessee had absolutely no control over the fund created by the LIC for the benefit of the employees of the assessee and further all the contribution made by the assessee in the said fund ultimately came back to the Textool Employees Gratuity Fund, approved by the Commissioner with effect from the following previous year. Thus, the conditions stipulated in Section 36(1)(v) of the Act were satisfied. Having regard to the facts found by the Commissioner and affirmed by the Tribunal, no faul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
