DCIT-4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. MARAL OVERSEAS LTD, KHARGONE

Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.:

This is an Appeal filed by the Assessee under section 253 of

the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act

for the sake of brevity] before this tribunal as & by way of a

second Appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order

bearing Number:-1046/2021-22 dated 29.07.2022[DR No.

39/12 D No. 427] passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the

Act, which is herein after referred to as the “Impugned

Page 1 of 20

Maral Overseas Ltd. ITA No. 571/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2006-07

order”. The Relevant Assessment year is 2006-07 and the

corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2005 to

31.03.2006.

2.1 That as and by way of an assessment order made u/s

143(3) of the Act the balance losses of AY 2005-06 were

carried forwarded to Rs. 20,20,76,816/-. The total Income

as per the ROI was at Rs. 1,57,87,570/-. The Ld. AO in the

aforesaid assessment order has made following additions as

below:-

Total income as per return Rs. 1,57,84,570- Add: as discussed above 1. Deduction u/s 10B as per para-3 Rs. 1,16,32,645/ 2. Disallowance out of Business Promotion Expenses as per para-4 Rs. 1,00,000/- Difference on accounts as per para - 5 Rs. 16,131/- 4. Unsecured loans as per para - 6 Rs. 30,000/- 5. Gratuity claim u/s 40A(7) as per para - 7 Rs. 1,45,87,125/- 6. Prepayment penalty as per para -8 Rs 10,00,000/- Total Income Assessed at Rs. 4,31,50,471/-

The total income was assessed at Rs. 4,31,50,471/-. Less

set off of b/F losses as per order u/s 143(3) dated

29.12.2007 of AY 2005-06 Rs. 24,52,27,287/-.That the

aforesaid assessment order was dated 24.12.2008 which is

Page 2 of 20

Maral Overseas Ltd. ITA No. 571/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2006-07

here in after referred to as the “Impugned assessment

order”. The core issue was under caption gratuity claim u/s

40A(7) wherein para 7 of the “Impugned assessment order”

the Ld. AO had held as follows:-

7.“Gratuity claim u/s 40A(7) Assessee has claim gratuity u/s 40A(7) Rs. 1,45,87,125/-. Assessee has filed the application for approval of gratuity trust with income tax authorities for which approval was not received during the year. Assessee was asked to explain the claim of gratuity u/s 40A(7). Assessee in its written submission dated 25.08.2008 stated that:- "The claim of Rs. 1,45,67,125/- is allowable to the assessee company as per clause (b) of section 40A(7). The gratuity fund set up for the employees of the company has been, subsequently granted approval by the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-11, Indore w.e.f. 01.04.2007, It may be clarified that the assessee company has applied for the approval of its Gratuity trust to the Income lax Department way back in April, 2004. In view of the matter and also in light of the specific provisions of section 40A(7)(b), the same allowable, Since gratuity fund set up by the company for the employees was not approved by competent authority and assessee got approval w.e.f. 01.04.2007, it is not a approved gratuity fund. Therefore claim of assessee u/s 40A(7), for gratuity is not allowable. It is also not allowable as per u/s 40A(9) also which is reproduced as under:- "No deduction shall be allowed in respect of any sum paid by the assessee as an employer towards the setting up or formation of, or as contribution to, any fund, trust, company, association of persons, body of individuals, society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860(21 of 1860), or other institution for any purpose, except where such sum is so paid, for the purposes and to the extent provided by or under clause (iv) or clause (v) or clause (v) of sub-section (1) of section 36, or, as required by or under any other law for the time being is force", The contribution of Rs. 1,45,87,125/- was not made by the assessee in approved gratuity found, it is being disallowed and an amount of Rs. 1,45,87,125/-is added back to the taxable income of the assessee.”

Page 3 of 20

Maral Overseas Ltd. ITA No. 571/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2006-07

2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid

“Impugned assessment order” prefers the first appeal u/s

246A of the act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “Impugned

order” has allowed the first appeal of the assessee on the

grounds & reasons stated therein. In respect of core issue of

gratuity claim u/s 40A(7) the Ld. CIT(A) in the “Impugned

order” had held as under:-

“9. Ground no. 4 is related to disallowance u/s 40A(7) of Rs. 1,45,87,125/-. During the year under consideration the appellant had made a contribution of Rs. 1,44,73,819/- to the Gratuity Trust by the name of Maral Overseas Ltd Employees Group Gratuity Trust Fund, which was not a recognized Gratuity Trust. A further payment of Rs. 1,13,306/ was made directly to the employees of the assessee company by way of gratuity. The AO has disallowed the gross payment of Rs. 1,45,87,125/ on the grounds that the Trust was not recognized. The appellant stated that the Trust had applied for approval way back in April, 2004, which was however given by the concerned CIT belatedly vide order dated 28.11.2007 w.c.f. 01.04.2007, and in the said order itself, it has been noted by the CIT that all the formalities stood completed upon filing of deed of variation dated 20.12.2005. It is further submitted by the appellant that the said variation deed merely contained cosmetic changes in the original deed and no substantive changes which would have any impact as far as requirement under the Act is concerned. The appellant has further drawn attention to the fact that as per the audited balance sheet of the gratuity fund as on 31.03.2006, it can be seen that the funds received from the company have been kept invested in LIC and other prescribed modes. The_appellant has further relied on the decisions in the cases of English Indian Clays Ltd (supra), Shalimar Wire and Industries Ltd (supra) and the District Co- operative Central Bank (supra), in support of the contention that where the delay in granting approval to a gratuity fund is not on the part of the appellant, the appellant could not be penalized for the same.

Page 4 of 20

Maral Overseas Ltd. ITA No. 571/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2006-07

9.1. I have considered the assessment order and the submissions of the appellant. The AO has disallowed the gross payment of Rs. 1,45,87,125/- on the grounds that the Trust was not recognized. The Trust had applied for approval way back in April, 2004 which was however given by the concerned CIT belatedly vide order dated 28.11.2007 w.e.f. 01.04.2007, and in the said order itself, it has been noted by the CIT that changes proposed through deed of variation dated 20.12.2005 have also been considered alongwith Original Trust deed dated 08.01.2004. The said variation deed merely contained cosmetic changes in the original deed and no substantive changes, mainly in the nature of adding M/s ICICI Prudential Life Insurance -Company Ltd-as-an-"Insurer for the gratuity-sehemes-being taken-by-the Trust-for-its employees. From the audited balance sheet of the gratuity fund as on 31.03.2006, it can be seen that the funds received from the company have been kept invested in LIC and other prescribed modes. The appellant has further rightly relied on the decisions in the cases of English Indian Clays Ltd (supra), Shalimar Wire and Industries Ltd (supra) and the District Co-operative Central Bank (supra), in support of the contention that where the delay in granting approval to a gratuity fund is on the part of the Department, the appellant could not be penalized for the same. In this regard, the jurisdictional High Court also, in the case of CII' Vs. Arya Exports and industries (2017) 85 taxmann.com 34 (Delhi), has held that where the assessee export house had applied for renewal of its trade house certificate and application was under consideration, it could not be said that renewal was negatived by relevant authority and hence the assessee could not be denied appropriate deduction. The logic applied in the above ruling equally applies to the case at hand, where delay in granting approval to a gratuity fund is not on the part of the appellant, the appellant could not be penalized for the same. It is accordingly held that the appellant was eligible for deduction u/s 40A(7) in respect of the amount contributed to the Gratuity Trust as well as the amount paid directly to employees on account of gratuity. As a result, the addition of Rs. 1,45,87,125/- is hereby deleted. Ground no. 4 is allowed.”

2.3 That the Revenue being aggrieved by the “Impugned

order” has preferred the instant appeal in the form No. 36

Page 5 of 20

Maral Overseas Ltd. ITA No. 571/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2006-07

against the “Impugned order” on grounds which are as

under:-

“1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A)-31, New Delhi has erred in law and on facts in allowing exemption u/s 108 of the Act of Rs. 1,16,32,645/-, account of income of unit IV, which started as a measure of enhancing the capacity of the existing units operational from AY 1992-93. 2.Whether, an undertaking claiming exemption u/s 10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it existed prior to 01.04.1999 would be entitled for exemption/deduction u/s 10B for extended period of ten years as per the amended provisions of law brought on statute with effect from 01.04.1999? 3.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A)-31, New Delhi has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of business promotion expenses on account of tour & travel, conveyance and telephone charges ete incurred by employees, despite assessee agreeing to the fact that some expenses were not supported by bills? 4.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A)-31, New Delhi has erred in treating the addition of Rs. 30,000/- made u/s 68 of the Act as disallowance made u/s 37 of the Act by directing the AO to verify whether the transaction is in normal conduct of business and if so, DLEETE the addition, ignoring the fact that addition u/s 68 was made as the source and nature of transaction remained unexplained and not just the nature? 5.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A)-31, New Delhi has erred in deleting disallowance of Rs. 1,45,87,125/- made by the AO on account of contribution made to unapproved gratuity fund? 6.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A)-31, New Delhi erred in deleting the disallowance of 6 Rs. 10,00,000/-made by the AO on account of disallowance of prepayment penalty charges to the bank on resetting of interest rate, being penal in nature?

7.The order of the Ld.CIT(A)-31, New Delhi is perverse, erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. 8. The grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 9.The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter OR forgo any ground(s) of appeal either on OR before the final hearing of the appeal.”

Page 6 of 20

Maral Overseas Ltd. ITA No. 571/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2006-07

Record of hearing

3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal

on 03.02.2026 when the Ld. DR for and on behalf of the

Revenue appeared before this Tribunal & interalia contended

that the “Impugned order” is bad in law, illegal & not

proper. It therefore deserves to be set aside. It was next

contended that the registry of this Tribunal has pointed out

the delay of 975 days in preferring the present appeal. The

“Impugned order” is dated 29.07.2022. The date of service

of the impugned order is dated 05.08.2022. The appeal was

e-filed 02.07.2025 which period is well beyond the statutory

time limit of 60 days. In this regard the Revenue has placed

on the record of this Tribunal a letter dated 16.12.2025 by

virtue of which the Revenue has prayed the delay be

condoned. In the said letter a detailed explanation is given

by the Revenue on the delay in the filling of the instant

appeal the contents of the said letter is reproduced by us as

below:-

Page 7 of 20

Maral Overseas Ltd. ITA No. 571/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2006-07

Page 8 of 20

Maral Overseas Ltd. ITA No. 571/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2006-07

Page 9 of 20

Maral Overseas Ltd. ITA No. 571/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2006-07

3.2 In this regard the Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted

that the assessee has no objection on the delay aspect

accordingly we condone the delay. There are no malafides.

The cause of the delay is bonafidely explained basis bonafide

reasons. The appeal is admitted & taken up for hearing.

3.3 During the course of the hearing thereafter the Ld. AR for

the assessee company addressed this Tribunal first, for

which the Ld. DR had no objection.

3.4 The Ld. AR stated that the assessee presently is in to the

manufacturing of yarn, knitting etc & has a factory premises

in the khargone district of MP.

3.5 The Ld. AR for & on behalf of the assessee has placed on

record of this Tribunal a chart of issues covering all the

grounds raised by the Revenue in the instant appeal in

summary manner which we reproduce as below:-

Amoun Gro t Assessm CIT(A) und Issue Remarks (In ent order order No. Rs.) Page 2 to The AO considered the disallowance based on view taken by Disallowance of 7 Page 20 to the assessing officer in AY 2001-02 and 2002-03 wherein the claim of 26 claim of exemption u/s 10B was disallowed on the ground that 1 to exemption u/s 1,16,32 Para 3 Unit IV is mere extension of existing units and cannot be 3 10B in respect ,645/- Para 6 to considered as separate industrial undertaking. The issue of unit IV. Finding: 6.5 raised by the AO in AY 2001-02 and 2002-03 was finally page 6 to decided by Hon’ble Special Bench of ITAT vide order 7 dated 28/03/2012 reported in 136 ITD 177 (Indore

Page 10 of 20

Maral Overseas Ltd. ITA No. 571/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2006-07

Special bench) wherein the claim of exemption in respect of Unit III and Unit IV was allowed. The order of Hon’ble Special bench of ITAT has attained finality as the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed by High Court on account of low tax effect.

The CIT(A) allowed the claim of exemption u/s 10B in respect of Unit IV by placing reliance on the decision of Special bench.

The issue is fully and squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Special Bench.

AO considered the ad-hoc disallowance merely based on earlier order and on the ground that complete verification of expenses in possible.

The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance by holding the AO has not Ad-hoc Page 26 to Page 7 to given any justifiable basis for ad-hoc disallowance. Further, disallowance of 27 4 to 1,00,00 8 the CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT in business 5 0 assessee’s own case for AY 1997-98 (ITA No. promotion Para 7 to Para 4 415/Ind/2000 dated 15/12/2009) wherein also the ad- expenses 7.1 hoc disallowance of Rs. 1 lakhs out of business promotion expenses was deleted.

The issue is covered in favour of the assessee from the decision of Hon’ble ITAT for AY 1997-98 to 2000-01.

The AO considered addition u/s 68 merely on the ground that confirmed copy of account was not furnished. Addition u/s 68 in respect of Page 8 to The assessee before CIT(A) explained that the assessee Page 27 deposit received 9 availed transportation service from the said party and the 6 30,000 from M/s. amount standing in the books pertain to such transactions. Para 8 Radiant Tanker Para 6 Services The CIT(A) has directed the assessing officer to verify the bills and nature of transaction and delete the addition in case the same are found in order.

Page 28 to Disallowance of Page 9 to The AO considered the disallowance u/s 40A(7) on the 29 7 to claim of gratuity 1,45,87 10 misconceived ground that the gratuity trust to which gratuity 11 paid to trust u/s ,125/- contribution was paid was approved by CIT from immediately Para 9 to 40A(7) Para 7 subsequent year i.e. w.e.f 01/04/2007 and as such 9.1 contribution paid to unapproved trust is not allowable.

Page 11 of 20

Maral Overseas Ltd. ITA No. 571/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2006-07

The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance by observing that the application for approval of gratuity trust was filed by the assessee in April 2004, however, the approval was granted by CIT belatedly on 28/11/2007 w.e.f 01/04/2007. The CIT(A) further observed that the assessee has satisfied all the conditions and the funds of trust have been kept in specified mode and the assessee cannot be penalized for the delay in grant of approval. The CIT(A) allowed the claim by placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, Kerala High Court and Calcutta High Court.

The Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the disallowance. Further, the case of assessee is also covered from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Textool Co. Ltd. [2013] 216 Taxman 327 (SC) and PCIT v. State Bank of India [2023] 294 Taxman 428 (SC). Further, reference is made to the decision of Hon’ble ITAT in the following cases wherein under similar circumstances, the claim of deduction was accepted:

 ACIT v. Gujarat State Co-op Marketing Federation Ltd. [2021] 129 taxmann.com 53 (Ahd. Trib)

Twinings P. Ltd. v. DCIT (ITA No. 391/Kol/19 dated 08/01/24)

The AO has considered the disallowance on the ground that prepayment charges are in the nature of penalty thus not allowable u/s 37(1).

The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance by placing reliance on the Disallowance of Page 29 to decision of Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat 12 prepayment Page 10 30 10,00,0 Guardian Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 7615 of 2009 dated to charges paid for 00 14/01/2020) wherein it was held that prepayment premium 13 resetting the Para 8 Para 10 to paid to bank for restructuring of rate is allowable expense. loan interest 10.1 The issue is fully and squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Supreme Court and High Court as referred in the order of CIT(A).

3.6 In so far as ground No. 1 & 2 is concerned where there is

disallowance of Rs. 1,16,32,645/[Disallowance of claim of

exemption u/s 10B in respect of unit IV ] it was submitted

Page 12 of 20

Maral Overseas Ltd. ITA No. 571/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2006-07

that Ld. AO findings in the “Impugned assessment order”

at pages 2 to 7 stands set aside by virtue of pages 20 to 26 of

the impugned order vide para 6 to 6.5. It was submitted that

issue u/s 10B is resolved by ITAT Indore Bench in their

own case which is reported in (2012) 136 ITD 177

(Indore)(SB) dated 28.03.2012.

3.7 The issue of Ad hoc disallowance of Rs. 1 lakh as

business promotion expenses too stands resolved by ITAT

Indore bench in ITA No. 415/Ind/2000 dated 15.12.2009

wherein also the ad hoc disallowance of Rs. 1 lakh out of

business promotion expense is deleted.

[AY 97-98 to 2000-01].

3.8 With regard to ground No. 4 where AO had made addition

of Rs. 30,000/- u/s 68 of the Act on the ground that

confirmed copy of account was not furnished of m/s Radiant

Tanker services. The ld. CIT(A) remanded the matter back

to Ld. AO for verification of bills/vouchers and to delete

the addition if same are found to be in the order.

3.9 With regard to the core dispute of disallowance of

claim of gratuity paid to trust u/s 40A(7) of Rs.

Page 13 of 20

Maral Overseas Ltd. ITA No. 571/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2006-07

1,45,87,125/- the Ld. AO in the “Impugned assessment

order” disallowed the claim basis that the “gratuity Trust”

to which the gratuity contribution was paid was approved by

CIT from immediately subsequent year i.e. w.e.f. 01.04.2007

& as such contribution was paid to unapproved Trust which

is not allowable. The Ld. CIT(A) in the “Impugned order”

deleted the disallowance by observing that the application for

approval of gratuity Trust was filed by the assessee in April

2004, however, the approval was granted by CIT

belatedly on 28.11.2007 w.e.f. 01.04.2007. Ld. CIT(A) held

that assessee cannot be penalised for delay in the grant of

approval. Claim was allowed by following the decisions of

Hon’ble Delhi High Court, Kerala HC & Calcutta HC. i.e. CIT

v/s Agra Export and Ind (2017) 85 Taxmann.com 34 (Delhi),

PCIT v/s English Indian clays Ltd. (2018) 89

Taxmann.com134(Kerala) & CIT v/s Sharlimar wire & ind Ltd.

(1991) 188 ITR 814 (CAL).It was submitted by the Ld. AR

while the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the disallowance

further the assessee case is also covered from the decision of

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of CIT v/s Taxtool co.

Page 14 of 20

Maral Overseas Ltd. ITA No. 571/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2006-07

Ltd. (2013) 216 taxmann 327 (SC) & PCIT v/s SBI (2023) 294

Taxman 428 (SC).Even now the ITAT in case of twinings Pvt.

Ltd. v/s DCIT (ITA No. 391/Kol/2019 dated 08.01.2024

under similar circumstances have accepted claims of

deduction.

3.10 Per contra the Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue has

addressed the issue of contribution to the gratuity fund as

discussed in para 3.4 above by submitting in the hearing

that Ld. AO is correct that since approval was granted to

w.e.f 01.04.2007 the claim for deduction would not be

available prior to that. That save except this submission the

Ld. DR for the Revenue did not make any further submission

& thereafter the arguments were closed by the Bench.

4.1 We have to decide the legality, validity and proprietary of the

“impugned order” basis records of the case & the rival

submission canvassed before us.

Page 15 of 20

Maral Overseas Ltd. ITA No. 571/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2006-07

4.2 We have carefully perused the records of the case and have

heard the submissions.

4.3 We basis records of the case & after hearing & upon

examining the rival contentions of the Ld. AR & the Ld. DR

canvassed before us, are of the considered opinion that in so

far as the core ground No. 5 is concerned werein the revenue

has raised the ground to the effect that “whether on the facts

& in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)-31 new

Delhi has erred in deleting disallowance of Rs. 1,45,87,125/-

made by the AO on account of contribution made to un

approved gratuity fund. We hold that Ld. CIT(A) in the

“Impugned order” has not erred in law. In para 9 & 9.1

internal page 28 & 29 of the impugned order which is

already reproduced by us in the premises drawn up by us at

para 2.2 has given meritorious finding basis judicial

precedents of various High Courts. The Ld. AR has

additionally relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India in cases of CIT v/s Taxtool Co Ltd (2013) 216

Taxman 327 (SC) & that of PCIT v/s SBI (2023) 294 Taxman

428 (SC).

Page 16 of 20

Maral Overseas Ltd. ITA No. 571/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2006-07

4.4 In Re Taxtool Co Ltd. Case Hon’ble Apex Court has held

as under:

“8.Having considered the matter in the light of the background facts, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal. True that a fiscal statute is to be construed strictly and nothing should be added or subtracted to the language employed in the Section, yet a strict construction of a provision does not rule out the application of the principles of reasonable construction to give effect to the purpose and intention of any particular provision of the Act. (See : Shri Sajjan Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, M.P. & Anr. (1985) 156 ITR 585). From a bare reading of Sectin 36(1)(v) of the Act, it is manifest that the real intention behind the provision is that 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 fault can be found with the opinion expressed by the High court, warranting our interference.”

4.5 The Ld. AR has rightly relied upon the ITAT order of

Ahmedabad reported in (2021) 129 taxmann.com 53

(Ahmedabad) (Tribunal) [ACIT vs. Gujarat State Co-operative

Marketing Federation Ltd. ] wherein the following was held:-

“9. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The limited controversy that arises for our adjudication in the given facts and circumstances whether the assessee is entitled for the deduction for the contribution made to the gratuity fund which was not approved by the Commissioner of income tax under section 2(5) of the Act in the year under consideration. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Page 17 of 20

Maral Overseas Ltd. ITA No. 571/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2006-07

9.4 Undoubtedly, the gratuity fund created by the assessee was not approved by the Commissioner of income tax under section 2(5) of the Act in the year under consideration. In fact, the approval was granted by the Commissioner of income tax with effect from 1st April 2012 effective from the assessment year 2013-14. However, it is also a fact on records that the assessee has made an application for the approval under section 2(5) of the Act to the Commissioner of income tax vide letter dated 25-11-1985. This fact has not been disputed by the authorities below as well as the learned DR appeared before us. The copy of the application for the approval under section 36(1)(v) of the Act is placed on pages 41-45 of the paper book. At this stage the question arises, the assessee can be penalised for non- granting of the approval by the Commissioner of income tax. In this connection, we note that substantial time has been elapsed between the original application made ITA no.1851/Ahd/2018 Asstt. Year 2011-12 by the assessee and the fresh application made by the assessee dated 08-03-2016. To our understanding, the assessee should be vigilant enough to pursue its matter before the authorities. The assessee should not fold his hands on the reasoning that its job has done upon making the requisite application before the Commissioner of income tax under section 2(5) of the Act.

9.5 Be that as may be, undisputedly the approval was granted under section 2(5) of the Act subsequently by the Commissioner of income tax with effect from 1st April 2012. Furthermore, we note that the purpose of creating the approved gratuity fund was to ensure that the amount contributed by the assessee as the employer should leave the possession from its hands. In other words, the assessee should not have any control on the fund created for the welfare of the employees. In the case on hand, there is no ambiguity that there was no control of the assessee of whatsoever on the funds created by it for the welfare of the employees as the fund was invested with the LIC of India and LIC was directly paying amount to the employee on occasion of retirement.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

9.8 In the light of the above judgements, there is hardly any doubt regarding allowability of deductions for any contributions made to an approved gratuity fund established under an irrevocable trust. Further, no deduction shall be allowed to an organization of any provision for payment of gratuity.”

Page 18 of 20

Maral Overseas Ltd. ITA No. 571/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2006-07

4.6 The Ld. DR for Revenue save & except raising grounds in

form No. 36 on several issues including the above core issue

has failed to establish basis any narration, arguments &

contentions to assail the findings & conclusions reached by

the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. The only arguments

canvassed before us during the hearing was that the Ld. AO

is right holding that wef 01.07.2007 approval to the Trust

came in to force & for any Period Prior these to the claim will

not be admissible as the Trust in not approved one. We

respectfully do not concur with the views expressed &

submitted by Ld. DR for Revenue in view of our observations

& finding as aforesaid. The other issues/grounds are more or

less covered one in connected appeal No. ITA

570/Ind/2025 [ issue u/s 10B, disallowance of Rs.10 lac

for staff welfare expense, business promotion expense of

Rs.1 lac ]. In fact ITANos.569 to 571/Ind2025 were all

heard together with consent of the both the Parties. In all

these appeal Revenue is appellant & different assessment

years are involved. In these appeals Revenue has assailed

the impugned orders.

Page 19 of 20

Maral Overseas Ltd. ITA No. 571/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2006-07

4.7 In view of the above, we up held the “impugned order” &

dismiss the appeal of the Revenue.

Order 5

5.1 In the result appeal of Revenue is dismissed.

Pronounced in open court on 27.02.2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

(BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI) (PARESH M JOSHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Indore Dated : 27/02/2026 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Senior Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore

Page 20 of 20