9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s High Court found that the payment is not in any way affected by sec. 36 of the Act. The payment so made is deductible under sec. 37 of the Act, being part of the business expenditure. In this case also, by virtue of operation of section 20 of Tamilnadu Maritime Board Act, the erstwhile Government employees of Tamilnadu Port Department became the employees of Tamilnadu Maritime Board. The Government clarified in the letter dated 21.11.1996 that the employees so allotted to the Tamilnadu Maritime Board will have the same tenure, remuneration, rights and privileges - if the claim could not be allowed u/s 36 of the Act, the same has to be allowed u/s 37. Payment made by the assessee to the extent has to be treated as business expenditure i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder the Tamilnadu Maritime Board by the same tenure, remuneration and rights and privileges as to pension and gratuity. After establishment of Maritime Board, Tamilnadu Maritime Board Superannuation Fund was established by a deed dated 2.8.2013. The CIT granted his approval by an order dated 19.3.2014 with retrospective effect from 18.5.2011. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee towards contribution to superannuation fund on the ground that the superannuation fund was not approved by the CIT for the year under consideration. According to the ld. Counsel, if the claim of the assessee could not be allowed u/s 36(1)(iv) or 36(1)(v) of the Act, it has to be allowed u/s 37 of the Act as an expenditure. The ld. Counsel plac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perannuation fund was granted by the CIT with effect from 18.5.2011. The question arises for consideration is when the employees of the assessee were allotted by Government of Tamilnadu Port Department on the same terms and conditions, rights and privileges, whether the contribution made by the assessee is allowable u/s 37 of the Act or not. An identical issue was considered by the Madras High Court in CIT vs Kattabomman Transport Corporation Ltd(supra). In the case before the Madras High Court, Kattabomman Transport Corporation paid to the Government in order to enable the Government to credit the amount so paid to the Provident Fund Account of the Government employees who were at the point of time working in the Transport Corporation. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
