327 (SC) Pr.CIT vs. Rajasthan State Seed Corporation 386 ITR 267 (Raj) and CIT v. Continental Commercial Co. Ltd.

192 ITR 66High Court1991#10296 most cited

What is 327 (SC) Pr.CIT vs. Rajasthan State Seed Corporation 386 ITR 267 (Raj) and CIT v. Continental Commercial Co. Ltd. authority for?

For a provision for gratuity to be allowed as a deduction, the assessee must create an approved gratuity fund for the exclusive benefit of its employees under an irrevocable trust, and the application for approval must be made to the Commissioner.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Also referred to as

CIT vs. Continental Commercial Co. Ltd · 192 ITR 66 · Section 40A(7)(b)(ii) · provision for gratuity · approved gratuity fund · irrevocable trust

Judgments citing 327 (SC) Pr.CIT vs. Rajasthan State Seed Corporation 386 ITR 267 (Raj) and CIT v. Continental Commercial Co. Ltd.

Lubrizol Advanced Materials India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-14(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4017/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri M. Balaganesh, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 4017/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2015-16) Lubrizol Advanced Materials India The Dy. Commissioner Of Private Limited. Income Tax-14(2)(1) Room No. 432, 4 T H Industrial Estate, Lbs Marg, फनाभ/ Floor Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400 079 Aayakar Bhawan, Mk Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा सिं./Pan No. Aaaci4361B अऩीराथी की ओय से/ Appellant By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri Brajendra Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 28.06.2021 घोषणा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 13.08.2021

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, ARFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 37

…s to call for interference of this Court. We also do not find any perversity in the order impugned. The appeals are dismissed.” 6. Further, he also relied on other case laws of Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Continental Commercial Co. Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 66 (Calcutta) dated 12-06-1989, wherein it is held as under:- “The admitted fact was that the assessee made an application for approval of its gratuity fund on 31- 12-1975, to the Commissioner. The approval of the fund was not granted by the Commissioner before the assessment was completed. Section 40A(7)(b)(ii) prescribes three conditions for allow…

327 (SC) Pr.CIT vs. Rajasthan State Seed Corporation 386 ITR 267 (Raj) and CIT v. Continental Commercial Co. Ltd. (192 ITR 66) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax