DCIT (E) CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI vs. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY, NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that provisions for gratuity and leave encashment, when reasonably made and supported by actuarial reports, are allowable as application of income for charitable purposes. The decision of the CIT(A) was affirmed.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer disallowed provisions for gratuity and leave encashment as an application of income, considering them unascertainable liabilities. The assessee contended that these provisions were based on actuarial calculations and accounting standards.
What were the issues?
Whether provisions for gratuity and leave encashment, based on actuarial valuation, can be considered as application of income for charitable purposes.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT901 citing112 Taxmann 61 · 2000 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. National Association of Software & Services Companies40 citing345 ITR 362 · 2012 · HC
- CIT v. Birla Janahit Trust17 citing208 ITR 372 · 1994 · HC
- CIT v. Trustees of H.E.H. the Nizam's Charitable Trust13 citing131 ITR 497 · 1981 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHIBENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI
Before: Smt. Diva SinghDr. B. R. R. Kumar
Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order of the ld CIT(A)-40, Delhi dated 28.11.2019.
The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the provisions related to gratuity and leave encashment as provisions are a mere estimate of the liabilities by the assessee and in no way can be treated as application of income.”
Provision for gratuity and provision for leave encashment
The Assessing Officer disallowed provision for gratuity and provision for leave encashment amounting to Rs. 95,00,000/- and Rs. 70,00,000/- respectively as application of income since the said amounts represented unascertainable liability. Before
2 Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has submitted that the provisions for gratuity and leave encashment have been made on the basis of a report and actuarial calculations as regards provisions which would be required to be made in respect of liability on account of employee benefits. It was submitted that as per the Accounting Standard notified by the Government, it was incumbent upon the assessee to make provisions for all known liabilities. The assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT 112 Taxmann 61 and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Insilco Limited in ITA 873/2008.
The ld. CIT(A) held that the contention of the assessee an actuarial valuation report with respect to gratuity and leave encashment was available with the assessee but could not be produced as it was not sought for production before the AO.
Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record.
As per the Accounting Standard on accounting for retirement benefits, it is mandatory to make provisions of all accrued retirement benefits to employees. The assessee is liable to provide gratuity and leave encashment to its employees. In the case of CIT vs. Birla Janhit Trust [208 ITR 372(Cal)] the Hon'ble Court have held that expenditure on salaries and miscellaneous expenses for purpose of carrying out the purpose of the trust can be considered as application of income for charitable purposes. The Courts have held that a liability on the assessee having been imported, the liability would be an accrued liability and would not convert into a conditional one
3 Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University merely because the liability was to be discharged at a future date.
The question which needs to be looked at is whether provisions made, in this case provision for gratuity and leave encashment, are allowable as application of income. The Hon'ble Delhi Court, in the case of DIT (E) vs. NASSCOM (345 ITR 362 (DEL)] have observed that under the commercial principles it has always been recognized that a provision, reasonably made for a loss or an outgoing, can be deducted. There is nothing brought on record to show that the provision was not made bona fide. Similarly, in the case of CIT vs. Birla Janhit Trust (208 ITR 372) (Cal.), the Hon'ble Court has held that expenditure on salaries and miscellaneous expenses for purpose of carrying out the purpose of the trust can be considered as application of income for charitable purposes. Further, the income of charitable organizations has to be computed on commercial principles. Accounting standards mandate that provision be made for retirement benefits. Hence, it can be said that any provision which is reasonably made is to be allowed while computing the income available to the trust for application to charitable purposes in India in accordance with section 11(1)(a).
Reliance is being placed on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT vs. Trustees of H.E.H. the Nizam's Charitable Trust (1981) 131 ITR 497 (AP) it has been held that it was not necessary that the money should have been actually 'spent for being treated as application. It would not be correct to equate the word 'applied' with the word 'spent' and therefore even the funds which have been allocated for the purposes will
4 Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University be deemed to have been applied. The amounts debited to the income and expenditure account but which are not actually disbursed are shown as liabilities in the balance sheet. These facts and circumstances would constitute application of funds for charitable purposes within the meaning of section 11(1)(a).
In view of the discussion above, it is held that provision for gratuity and leave encashment are allowable as application of income. The decision of the ld. CIT(A) is hereby affirmed.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 11/04/2023.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Deputy Director of Income Tax (Exemption)… vs Ohio University Christ College Academy for…Bangalore9 Oct 2015Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. Trustees of H.E.H. the Nizam's Charitable Trust
The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation expenses related to program fees are deductible. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow accumulation of income, following a jurisdictional High Court ruling that...
- ITO(Exemption), Ward-1(2), Kolkata, Kolkta vs Dev Sangha Seva Pratisthan, KolkataKolkata13 Jun 2018Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. Birla Janahit Trust
The Tribunal held that administrative and establishment expenses are incidental to the charitable purpose and thus allowable. It also held that depreciation is allowable for the assessment year in question, as the amendm...
- M/S. the Hunger Project, Mumbai vs ITO (Exemtptions)-2(4), MumbaiMumbai5 Sept 2022Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Trustees of H.E.H. the Nizam's Charitable Trust
The Tribunal held that for charitable trusts, the term 'applied' in Section 11(1)(a) does not necessarily mean 'spent' and includes necessary provisions made as per statutory requirements. Therefore, the provision for gr...
- M/S Ursuline Franciscan Congregation… vs The Income Tax Officer (Exemption) Ward-1…Bangalore23 Aug 2021Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Trustees of H.E.H. the Nizam's Charitable Trust
The Tribunal held that fixed deposits cannot be treated as application of income under Section 11(1)(a) as the assessee failed to demonstrate that the funds were earmarked for charitable purposes. However, regarding accu...
- Lic Golden Jubilee Foundation, Mumbai vs DCIT E) 1(1), MumbaiMumbai30 Jul 2021Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Trustees of H.E.H. the Nizam's Charitable Trust
The Tribunal held that for exemption under Section 11(1)(a), it is sufficient if funds are provided or set apart for a charitable purpose, and actual spending in the year is not mandatory. This decision was based on a pr...
More judgments on Section 11(1)(a)
- Sri Vidyanikethan Educational Trust… vs DCIT Exemption Cir, VijayawadaITA 412/VIZ/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Porwal Charitable Trust, Thane vs The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward…ITA 7604/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- The Somaiya Trust, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 2(4)…ITA 4057/MUM/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Sept 2026AY 2023-24
- Jain Citizen Education Society, Surendra… vs ITO, Ward-2, Exmp, AhmedabadITA 737/AHD/2026[2023-2024]Status: Disposed14 Sept 2026AY 2023-2024
- Vanita Samaj, Mumbai vs Jurisdiction Exem Ward 2(4), MumbaiITA 8116/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed10 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026