Chief Commissioner (Admn) and Another v. Karnataka Electricity Board

197 ITR 48High Court#17164 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Judgments citing Chief Commissioner (Admn) and Another v. Karnataka Electricity Board

HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO CIR 1(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 5431/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10BSection 80HSection 80I

…he actuarial valuation and that it is wholly and exclusively for the purpose of company‟s business and is fully deductible. For this proposition, the assessee relied on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Karnataka Electricity Board 197 ITR 48 (Kar) and the judgement of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Metal Box Company of India vs Their Workman 73 ITR 53 (SC) and Sassoon David & Co Pvt Ltd vs CIT 118 ITR 261. The Assessing Officer however, found that though the assessee has made a provision of Rs.4641.43 lac in the P&L Account, the actual payment was Rs.1712.20 lac only. In view o…

VAJRA RUBBER PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 660/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. Preetha Shenoy, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

Section 250Section 40A(7)

…decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court is clearly applicable in assessee’s case. 7. Besides the above, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Chief Commissioner (Admn.) & Anr. v. Karnataka Electricity ITA No.660 /Coch/2022 Page 5 of 5 Board 197 ITR 48 (Karn.) and ADIT Vs. Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation 125 ITR 136 (Karn.) has also taken a view that actual payment to gratuity fund of employees is allowable as deduction u/s.37(1) of the Act. In view of the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that the deduction claimed by the Assessee should be allowed. We direct accordingly and allow…

UNITY HOSPITAL P. LTD,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 69/COCH/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri B. Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

…our considered view the above decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court is clearly applicable in assessee’s case. 9. Besides the above, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Chief Commissioner (Admn.) and another Vs. Karnataka Electricity Board 197 ITR 48 (Karn.) and ADIT Vs. Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation 125 ITR 136 (Karn.) has also taken a view that actual payment to gratuity fund of employees is allowable as deduction u/s.37(1) of the Act. 10. In view of the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that the deduction claimed by the Assessee should be allowed. We direct accordingly and…

THE GRADUATES CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,MYSORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2, MYSORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1823/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. The Graduates’ Co- The Additional Operative Bank Ltd., Commissioner Of # K-9, 473/1, Chamaraja Vs. Income-Tax, Double Road, Range – 2, Mysore. Mysore. Pan: Aaaat8676L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2019

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 194A(3)Section 234Section 36(1)Section 37

…5. Regarding ground nos. 8 and 9, this was submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Chief Commissioner (Admn) and Another Vs. Karnataka Electricity Board reported in 197 ITR 48, copy available on pages 60 to 62 of the paper book. At this juncture, it was pointed out by the bench that on page no. 52 of this 197 ITR, it is noted by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in that case that the provision was made by the assessee to meet its statutory obligation, since this statutory corporation is obliged to pay pension to its employee…

M/S ASSOCIATED HYDRO PRESSINGS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1040/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep C., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Padmameenakshi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 36(1)(v)Section 37(1)Section 40A(7)Section 40A(9)

…bility towards payment of gratuity. This argument of the Assessee has not been dealt with by the CIT(A) in his order. 7. Besides the above, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Chief Commissioner (Admn.) and another Vs. Karnataka Electricity Board 197 ITR 48 (Karn.) and ADIT Vs. Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation 125 ITR 136 (Karn.) has also taken a view that actual payment to gratuity fund of employees is allowable as deduction u/s.37(1) of the Act. The ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of M/s. Bilagi Pattana Sahakari Vs. Page 6 of 6 CIT in ITA No.1073/Bang/2012 order dated 15.5.2013 has also ta…