9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (2) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fund in the case of its managing director for the assessment year 1972-73 ?" The assessee is a company. It has been deducting certain amounts from the salaries paid to the managing directors (it is not clear from the record, whether managing director was one or more than one) on account of provident fund and has also been making its own contribution towards the same for quite some time. The proceedings herein pertain to the assessee's assessment for the assessment year 1972-73. The amount of salary is Rs. 3,000 per month and the amount paid by the assessee towards the provident fund account in respect of the salaries paid to the managing director is Rs. 13,755. We are told that this has been so for a number of years. The question wheth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as entitled to a claim under section 37 and the assessee could not also be permitted to raise the contention that, alternatively, the claim for deduction was permissible under section 37." When this question came up for consideration before the Tribunal in the appeal for the assessment year 1969-70, the Tribunal, it appears, considered the question of the assessee's claim for deduction not only under section 36(1)(iv) but also under section 37. As regards the claim under section 37, the Tribunal observed that the amount of the assessee's contribution could be taken as a benefit to the managing directors. This kind of benefit was a commonly known benefit conferred in terms of the service conditions of private employers and even of Governme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the assessee's claim under section 37 requires to be considered in view of the fact that the question was specifically left open by our court in Western India Paper and Board Mills v. CIT [1982] 137 ITR 525 and, in the judgment for the assessment year 1970-71, this question was not brought to the notice of the court. We need hardly mention that, so far as the question of allowance of the claim under section 36(1)(iv) is concerned, our court's judgment in Western India Paper and Board Mills v. CIT [1982] 137 ITR 525, is binding on us following which we hold that the assessee's claim under section 36(1)(iv) was rightly rejected. However, so far as the claim under section 37 is concerned, we find ourselves in agreement with the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
