Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. D. V. Bapat, ITO

101 ITR 292High Court1975#4944 most cited

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).

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. D.V. Bapat · ITO · 101 ITR 292 · Section 37(1) · Section 36(1)(v) · unapproved gratuity fund · deductible expenditure · business expenditure

Judgments citing Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. D. V. Bapat, ITO

M/S the District Co-Operative Central Bank Ltd., Eluru vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Eluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 49/VIZ/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(v)Section 40A(7)(b)

…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., Circle - 1, Eluru vs. M/S the District Co-Operative Central Bank Ltd., Eluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 476/VIZ/2012[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jan 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(v)Section 40A(7)(b)

…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…

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)

…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…