What is Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. D. V. Bapat, ITO authority for?

Amounts paid towards an unapproved gratuity fund are deductible as business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, even though they may not be allowable under Section 36(1)(v).

How many judgments cite Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. D. V. Bapat, ITO?

23 judgments on BharatTax cite Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. D. V. Bapat, ITO (101 ITR 292), spanning 2017 to 2023.

Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. D. V. Bapat, ITO (101 ITR 292)

PARAG MILK FOODS LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 177/PUN/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.177/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Parag Milk Foods Ltd., The Assistant Awasari Phata,Village Manchar, Vs Commissioner Of Income Tal - Ambegaon, Tax, Circle-4, Pune. Dist-Pune – 411503. Pan: Aabcp 0425 G Assessee/ Appellant Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/06/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)[Ld.Cit(A)], Pune-11 Dated 04.02.2022 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 26.12.2018 For A.Y.2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer Of Making An Addition Of Rs.1,15,71,588/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Deduction U/Sec.80Ia Of The Act On The Ground That The Assessee Has Not Complied With The Conditions Which Are Necessary To Claim Deduction U/Sec.80Ia Of The Act & Failed To Furnish Any Concrete Evidence To Prove That The Parag Milk Foods Ltd., [A]

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40A(7)Section 80I

…Q Information System (India) P. Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT 15 Parag Milk Foods Ltd., [A] (supra). From the perusal of said decision, we find that reference is made to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. D.V. Bapat, ITO (1975) 101 ITR 292 (Bom) and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Metal Box Company of India Ltd. Vs. The Workmen (1969) 73 ITR 53 (SC), wherein it has been held that the amount paid towards unapproved gratuity fund can be deducted under section 37(1) of the Act, though not under section 36(1)(v) of the Act. Following the ratio laid down by the jurisdictional H…

SHRI RAJKOT JILLA CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING UNION LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1) (5),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4/RJT/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang Khakhar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…r authorities. The ITAT made the following observations in this regard: 13.s. Be that as it may, even obiter of the jurisdictional High Court cannot be held as non-binding. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. D.V. Bapat , ITO [1975]101 ITR 292, has held that obiter dicta of Supreme Court is binding on all High Courts. When the obiter dicta of Supreme Court is binding on all High Courts, we fail to appreciate as to how obiter dicta of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court can be claimed as not binding on I.T.A No. 04/Rjt/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 7 Shri Rajkot Jilla Co-operative Marketi…

VIKAS CO. OP CREDIT SOC. LTD,MEHSANA vs. ITO, WARD-3, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 537/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Samir Vora, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Purshottam Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 250Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…r authorities. The ITAT made the following observations in this regard: 13.s. Be that as it may, even obiter of the jurisdictional High Court cannot be held as non-binding. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. D.V. Bapat , ITO [1975]101 ITR 292, has held that obiterdicta of Supreme Court is binding on all High Courts. When the obiter dicta of Supreme Court is binding on all High Courts, we fail to appreciate as to how obiter dicta of the I.T.A No. 537/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No. 7 Vikas Co.op Credit Soc. Ltd. vs. ITO Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court can be claimed as not binding on…

M/S ADC INDIA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed while the appeal by the assesse is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 585/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. Aliasgar Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

…en if the payment is made to an unapproved gratuity fund, the same has to be allowed as a deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the Tribunal followed the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Tisco Vs. ITO 101 ITR 292 (Bombay). IT(TP)A Nos. 407/Bang/2015 and 585/Bang/2015 Page 15 of 16 19. Aggrieved by the order of the DRP, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 20. We have heard the submissions of the learned DR who relied on the order of the AO. In our view, in the light of the decisions relied on by the DRP, the addition was rightly deleted. We ar…

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S ADC INDIA COMMUNICATIONS LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed while the appeal by the assesse is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 407/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. Aliasgar Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

…en if the payment is made to an unapproved gratuity fund, the same has to be allowed as a deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the Tribunal followed the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Tisco Vs. ITO 101 ITR 292 (Bombay). IT(TP)A Nos. 407/Bang/2015 and 585/Bang/2015 Page 15 of 16 19. Aggrieved by the order of the DRP, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 20. We have heard the submissions of the learned DR who relied on the order of the AO. In our view, in the light of the decisions relied on by the DRP, the addition was rightly deleted. We ar…

M/S MRINALINI BIRI MANUFACTURING CO.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 85/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.85/Kol/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(v)Section 37(1)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.85/Kol/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) M/s Mrinalini Biri Vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata P-43, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata- 700001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AACCM 1686 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCA Respondent by :Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 27/07/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 16/09/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A.L. Saini, AM: The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining t…

THE BARAMULLA CENTRAL COPERATIVE BANK LTD,KASHMIR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 359/ASR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhry & Sh. O. P. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. Padam Bahl (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36

…Ltd. 300 ITR 308 (P&H) 3. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC). 4. Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 348 ITR 306 (SC). 5. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. D.V Bapat Income Tax Officer 101 ITR 292 (Bom).” 6. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The perusal of the assessment order reveals that the AO has made addition on the basis of facts disclosed by the assessee in the return of income 4 The Baramulla Central Coop.…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S CORNELL OVERSEAS PRIVATE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2395/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2004-05 Dcit, Vs Cornell Overseas Private Ltd., Circle-3(1), B-235, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi,. Phase-I, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacc0034F Co No.217/Del/2011 (Ita No.2395/Del/2011) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Cornell Overseas Private Ltd., Vs Dcit, B-235, Okhla Industrial Area, . Circle-3(1), Phase-I, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacc0034F (Appellant/Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Vandana Bhandari, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- 20, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2004-05. The Assessee Has Also Filed Co No.217/Del/2011 Cross Objections Against The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common

For Appellant: Ms Vandana Bhandari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 28Section 80HSection 90C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : I-1 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2004-05 DCIT, Vs Cornell Overseas Private Ltd., Circle-3(1), B-235, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi,. Phase-I, New Delhi. PAN: AAACC0034F CO No.217/Del/2011 (ITA No.2395/Del/2011) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Cornell Overseas Private Ltd., Vs DCIT, B-235, Okhla Industrial Area, . Circle-3(1), Phase-I, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAACC0034F (Appellant/Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms Vandana Bhandari, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Sandeep Kuma…

THE KANAKAMAHALAKSHMI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 300/VIZ/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Sept 2018AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao –AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.S. Murthy –Sr.DR

…tan Ltd. (supra). In the case before the jurisdictional High Court, the Provident Fund was not approved by the CIT. The Andhra Pradesh High Court after referring to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. D. V. Bapat, ITO (1975) 101 ITR 292, and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Metal Box Company of India Ltd. vs. The Workmen (1969) 73 ITR 53, held that the amount paid towards an unapproved gratuity fund can be deducted under sec. 37 of the I.T. Act, though not under sec. 36(1)(v). In view of this judgment of the jurisdictional High Court, in our opinion, even if any payment is m…

THE KANAKAMAHALAKSHMI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 299/VIZ/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Sept 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao –AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.S. Murthy –Sr.DR

…tan Ltd. (supra). In the case before the jurisdictional High Court, the Provident Fund was not approved by the CIT. The Andhra Pradesh High Court after referring to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. D. V. Bapat, ITO (1975) 101 ITR 292, and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Metal Box Company of India Ltd. vs. The Workmen (1969) 73 ITR 53, held that the amount paid towards an unapproved gratuity fund can be deducted under sec. 37 of the I.T. Act, though not under sec. 36(1)(v). In view of this judgment of the jurisdictional High Court, in our opinion, even if any payment is m…

THE DY. CIT,, VIJAYAWADA vs. M/S. THE GANDHI CO-OP., VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the assessment years 2012-

ITA 461/VIZ/2016[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Sept 2018AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.199/Viz/2016 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Joint Commissioner Of Vs. The Gandhi Cooperative Income Tax (Osd), Vijayawada Urban Bank Ltd. Vijayawada [Pan :Aaaat8072G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.461/Viz/2016 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. The Gandhi Cooperative Circle-2(1), Vijayawada Urban Bank Ltd. Vijayawada [Pan :Aaaat8072G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.01/Viz/2018 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.Nos.199/Viz/2016) The Gandhi Cooperative Urban Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income Bank Ltd., Vijayawada Tax (Osd), Vijayawada [Pan :Aaaat8072G] Cross Objection No.02/Viz/2018 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.461/Viz/2016) The Gandhi Cooperative Urban Deputy Commissioner Of Bank Ltd., Vijayawada Income Tax [Pan :Aaaat8072G] Circle-2(1), Vijayawada निर्धाऩिती की ओि से/ Assessee By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar िधजस्व की ओि से/ Revenue By : Smt U Mini Chandran, Dr सुिवधई की तधिीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2018 05.09.2018 घोषणध की तधिीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Smt U Mini Chandran, DR

…an Ltd. (supra). In the case before the jurisdictional High Court, the Provident Fund was not approved by the CIT. The Andhra Pradesh High Court after referring to the judgement of the Bombay High Court in Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. D. V. Bapat, ITO (1975) 101 ITR 292, and the judgement of the Supreme Court in Metal Box Company of India Ltd. vs. The Workmen (1969) 73 ITR 53, held that the amount paid towards an unapproved gratuity fund can be deducted under sec. 37 of the I.T. Act, though not under sec. 36(1)(v). In view of this judgment of the jurisdictional High Court, in our opinion, even if any payment is…

THE JCIT(OSD),, VIJAYAWADA vs. THE GANDHI COPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD., VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the assessment years 2012-

ITA 199/VIZ/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Sept 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.199/Viz/2016 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Joint Commissioner Of Vs. The Gandhi Cooperative Income Tax (Osd), Vijayawada Urban Bank Ltd. Vijayawada [Pan :Aaaat8072G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.461/Viz/2016 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. The Gandhi Cooperative Circle-2(1), Vijayawada Urban Bank Ltd. Vijayawada [Pan :Aaaat8072G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.01/Viz/2018 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.Nos.199/Viz/2016) The Gandhi Cooperative Urban Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income Bank Ltd., Vijayawada Tax (Osd), Vijayawada [Pan :Aaaat8072G] Cross Objection No.02/Viz/2018 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.461/Viz/2016) The Gandhi Cooperative Urban Deputy Commissioner Of Bank Ltd., Vijayawada Income Tax [Pan :Aaaat8072G] Circle-2(1), Vijayawada निर्धाऩिती की ओि से/ Assessee By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar िधजस्व की ओि से/ Revenue By : Smt U Mini Chandran, Dr सुिवधई की तधिीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2018 05.09.2018 घोषणध की तधिीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Smt U Mini Chandran, DR

…an Ltd. (supra). In the case before the jurisdictional High Court, the Provident Fund was not approved by the CIT. The Andhra Pradesh High Court after referring to the judgement of the Bombay High Court in Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. D. V. Bapat, ITO (1975) 101 ITR 292, and the judgement of the Supreme Court in Metal Box Company of India Ltd. vs. The Workmen (1969) 73 ITR 53, held that the amount paid towards an unapproved gratuity fund can be deducted under sec. 37 of the I.T. Act, though not under sec. 36(1)(v). In view of this judgment of the jurisdictional High Court, in our opinion, even if any payment is…

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, GUNTUR vs. THE GUNTUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED,, TENALI

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for the assessment year 2013-14

ITA 78/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.77 & 78/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Years:2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively) Acit Vs. The Guntur District Circle-1(1) Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Guntur Tenali, Guntur [Pan : Aaatt6101H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.Appala Raju, DR

Section 36(1)(v)Section 37(1)

…an Ltd. (supra). In the case before the jurisdictional High Court, the Provident Fund was not approved by the CIT. The Andhra Pradesh High Court after referring to the judgement of the Bombay High Court in Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. D. V. Bapat, ITO (1975) 101 ITR 292, and the judgement of the Supreme Court in Metal Box Company of India Ltd. vs. The Workmen (1969) 73 ITR 53, held that the amount paid towards an unapproved gratuity fund can be deducted under sec. 37 of the I.T. Act, though not under sec. 36(1)(v). In view of this judgment of the jurisdictional High Court, in our opinion, even if any payment is…

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE GUNTUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED,, TENALI

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for the assessment year 2013-14

ITA 77/VIZ/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.77 & 78/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Years:2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively) Acit Vs. The Guntur District Circle-1(1) Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Guntur Tenali, Guntur [Pan : Aaatt6101H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.Appala Raju, DR

Section 36(1)(v)Section 37(1)

…an Ltd. (supra). In the case before the jurisdictional High Court, the Provident Fund was not approved by the CIT. The Andhra Pradesh High Court after referring to the judgement of the Bombay High Court in Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. D. V. Bapat, ITO (1975) 101 ITR 292, and the judgement of the Supreme Court in Metal Box Company of India Ltd. vs. The Workmen (1969) 73 ITR 53, held that the amount paid towards an unapproved gratuity fund can be deducted under sec. 37 of the I.T. Act, though not under sec. 36(1)(v). In view of this judgment of the jurisdictional High Court, in our opinion, even if any payment is…

THE ACIT,, ELURU vs. M/S. JEYPOTE SUGAR COMPANY LTD., CHAGALLU

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 268/VIZ/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Circle-1, Vs. M/S. The Jeypore Sugar Eluru. Company Ltd., D.No. 6/69, Chagallu, W.G. District. Pan No. Aaact 9942 R (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 50/Viz/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 268/Viz/2015) (Asst. Year : 2010-11) M/S. The Jeypore Sugar Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Company Ltd., D.No. 6/69, Eluru. Chagallu, W.G. District. Pan No. Aaact 9942 R (Applicant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Das – Sr.DR

Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 369(1)(iv)Section 37Section 40A(7)Section 40k

…ny Ltd.) (supra), In the case before the jurisdictional High Court, the Provident Fund was not approved by the CIT. The Andhra Pradesh High Court after referring to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. vs. D.V.Bapat, ITO (1975) 101 ITR 292, and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Metal Box Company of India Ltd. vs. The Workmen (1969) 73 ITR 53, held that the amount paid towards an unapproved gratuity fund can be deducted under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, though not under section 37(1)(v). In view of this judgment of the jurisdictional High Court, in our opinion, even if any…