COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. KARAMCHAND PREMCHAND PVT LTD

ITR/222/1994HC GujaratGJHC24020298199401 March 2006Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.A.PUJ3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

This is an Income Tax Reference before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, initiated at the instance of the revenue (Commissioner of Income-tax) against the assessee, Karamchand Premchand Pvt Ltd. The reference concerns two questions of law referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The first question pertains to the disallowability of the company's contribution to the provident fund and superannuation fund. The second question relates to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order being set aside or modified due to alleged contravention of Rule 86 of the Income-tax Rules by admitting directors to the benefit of the superannuation fund, a plea raised for the first time by the Department. The dispute involves the assessment years for which the contributions were made, though not explicitly stated in the provided text.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court addressed the two questions referred by the Tribunal. For the first question, concerning the disallowability of the company's contributions to the provident fund (Rs. 40,800) and superannuation fund (Rs. 61,200) under Section 36(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Court held that it was covered by a previous Division Bench decision of the same court in CIT v. Karamchand Premchand Pvt. Ltd. (1985) 152 ITR 94. This judgment, which was in favour of the assessee, had also been followed in a subsequent case involving the same assessee reported in 200 ITR 281. Therefore, the Court answered the first question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Regarding the second question, which pertained to the Department's plea raised for the first time about the contravention of Rule 86 of the Income-tax Rules, the Court held that in view of the decision on the first question, this second question did not survive and therefore declined to answer it. The reference was disposed of accordingly.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide two questions of law: 1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in holding that the company's contribution to the provident fund for a sum of Rs. 40,800/- and company's contribution for superannuation fund for a sum of Rs. 61,200/- is not disallowable under section 36(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in not entertaining the plea of the Department taken for the first time in the application dated 21st November, 1978 that the order of the Appellate Asstt. Commissioner should be set aside or modified because it appeared that the directors had been admitted to the benefit of superannuation fund in contravention of Rule 86 of the Income-tax Rules? Contentions: Assessee: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue: Argued that the company's contributions to the provident and superannuation funds were disallowable under Section 36(1)(iv). Additionally, the revenue sought to set aside or modify the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order on the grounds that directors were admitted to the superannuation fund in contravention of Rule 86 of the Income-tax Rules, raising this plea for the first time.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(iv),Section 256(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITR/222/1994 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 222 of 1994 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ ============================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ============================================================== COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - Applicant(s)

Versus KARAMCHAND PREMCHAND PVT LTD - Respondent(s) ============================================================== Appearance : MR MANISH R BHATT for Applicant(s) : 1, MR RK PATEL for Respondent(s) : 1, ================================================================== CORAM :  HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ Date : 01/03/2006 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE)

At the i

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(iv)

All 111 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(iv) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →