9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1861X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owed - ITA No. 555/PUN/2017 - - - Dated:- 30-1-2019 - SHRI R.S. SYAL, VP AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM For the Assessee : Shri C.H. Naniwadekar For the Revenue : Shri Sudhendu Das ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM : This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals)-9, Pune dated 23.12.2016 for the assessment year 2013-14 as per following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) -IX erred on facts and in law in holding that the assessee has made a payment to an unapproved gratuity fund, whereas the fact is that the assessee had already applied to the Hon'ble Principal CIT for the approval of gratuity scheme on 20th May 2011. The assessee has not received th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee company. However, it was observed that the said gratuity fund has not been approved by the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner of Income Tax. As per the provision of section 36(1)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act ) and such deduction is allowable on the gratuity fund which is approved by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. Therefore, the claim of the assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer and addition of ₹ 7,69,781/- on account of payment towards gratuity scheme was added to the total income of the assessee. 3. The Ld. AR of the assessee filed detailed written submissions before the Ld. CIT(Appeals). The Ld. CIT(Appeals) after considering the facts of the case, submiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ormation System (India) P. Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT in ITA No.84/HYD/2013 relating to assessment year 2008-09, order dated 31.05.2013. Thereafter, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Pune in ITA No.2275/PUN/2014 (supra.) has held as follows: 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue which arises by way of ground of appeal No.1 is the payment of gratuity to a fund formulated by the assessee for the benefit of its employees. The assessee claims that it had paid sum of ₹ 18,79,516/- to LIC on account of gratuity fund. The assessee had applied for recognition of the said gratuity fund before the Commissioner of Income Tax, which has not been approved till date. The Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) thus, inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
