← All Phrases

“approved gratuity fund”

Chapter I - PreliminarySection 2 - DefinitionsSection 2(5) / Part C of Fourth Schedule / ITR Part A-OI118 judgments

The decision most relied on for approved gratuity fund is Union of India v. Exide Industries (425 ITR 1), cited in 146 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on approved gratuity fund

Union of India v. Exide Industries
425 ITR 1 · 2020 · Supreme Court
146
citing judgments

The provision for leave encashment is allowable as a deduction only on an actual payment basis under Section 43B(f) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 43B(f).

Commissioner of Income-tax v. Society for Promotion of Education, Adventure Sport & Conservation of Environment
382 ITR 6 · 2016 · Supreme Court
26
citing judgments

If an assessee has applied for approval of a fund or exemption within a reasonable time, the exemption should not be denied due to delays in processing by the tax authorities. The taxing authorities erred in holding that gross receipts are taxable without allowing expenditure when exemption is denied.

Agrawal Flooring Stone Co. v. CIT
216 ITR 757 · 1995 · High Court
17
citing judgments

An amount paid by an assessee to its employees' approved gratuity fund is not deductible if it is not paid wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business. A payment made by way of contribution to a gratuity fund, while it may be for the benefit of the employees, must also be demonstrably for the purpose of the business itself to qualify for deduction.

CIT v. Bitoni Lamps Ltd.
144 Taxmann 33 · Reported
17
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 40A(7) of the Income Tax Act cannot be made solely on the ground that the gratuity fund is not approved, especially when the payment is made to an LIC group gratuity fund and approval is pending.

327 (SC) Pr.CIT vs. Rajasthan State Seed Corporation 386 ITR 267 (Raj) and CIT v. Continental Commercial Co. Ltd.
192 ITR 66 · 1991 · High Court
10
citing judgments

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.

Judgments citing approved gratuity fund

Dy..C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore

ITA 684/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel
Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)

treating as contingent liability 4 Disallowance of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) 5 Disallowance of unamortized incremental payment / contribution to 6 approved gratuity fund and payment/contribution to approved pension fund Disallowance of contribution to retired employees medical benefit fund 7 Disallowance of capital expenditure incurred towards rights issue ... from eligible business as declared and co-operate with the assessment proceedings. It is ordered accordingly. Disallowance of unamortized incremental payment / contribution to approved gratuity fund and payment/contribution to approved pension fund – Ground No.6 of assessee's appeal 32. The assessee in the computation of income claimed a deduction

State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

ITA 661/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel
Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)

treating as contingent liability 4 Disallowance of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) 5 Disallowance of unamortized incremental payment / contribution to 6 approved gratuity fund and payment/contribution to approved pension fund Disallowance of contribution to retired employees medical benefit fund 7 Disallowance of capital expenditure incurred towards rights issue ... from eligible business as declared and co-operate with the assessment proceedings. It is ordered accordingly. Disallowance of unamortized incremental payment / contribution to approved gratuity fund and payment/contribution to approved pension fund – Ground No.6 of assessee's appeal 32. The assessee in the computation of income claimed a deduction

Narmada Trust, New Delhi vs. The Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3034/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2023-24 Narmada Trust B-60/61 C/O Vs. Income Tax Officer Circle Bajaj Auto Limited Naraina, 25 (1) Industrial Area Phase-Ii New Delhi Mitraon Naraina Industrial Estate South West Delhi 110028 New Delhi Pan No. Aaatn0321K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 111ASection 12Section 143(1)

board have been advised that cases where income received by the trustees on behalf of a recognized provident fund, approved superannuation fund and approved gratuity fund is governed by section 10(25) of the Income –Tax Act, the question of their being charged to tax does not arise

Saurashtra Gramin Bank Manager (F & A), Rajkot vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 37/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 37/Rjt/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Saurashtra Gramin Bank Vs. The Pr. Cit-1, Manager (F & A), Rajkot 1St Floor Wing 2, Lic Jeevan Prakash Building, Tagore Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahas2116H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. A.D. Vyas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

Under section 36(1)(v) of the Act, any sum paid by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution towards an approved gratuity fund created by him for the benefit of his employees under an irrevocable trust is allowable as a deduction in the computation of income from

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. The Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, Raigad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 545/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

payment was made. He accordingly allowed the appeal of the assessee on this issue. 18. On the issue of disallowance of contribution to approved gratuity fund, the Ld. CIT(A) relying upon various decisions held that the assessee is entitled for deduction in respect of initial contribution made ... approved gratuity fund subject to the limitations laid down in Rule 104 of the I.T. Rules, 1962. He accordingly allowed the appeal of the assessee on this issue. ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 19. On the issue of deduction of Rs.43,678/- as pointed out by the Special Auditor

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. The Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, Raigad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 544/PUN/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

payment was made. He accordingly allowed the appeal of the assessee on this issue. 18. On the issue of disallowance of contribution to approved gratuity fund, the Ld. CIT(A) relying upon various decisions held that the assessee is entitled for deduction in respect of initial contribution made ... approved gratuity fund subject to the limitations laid down in Rule 104 of the I.T. Rules, 1962. He accordingly allowed the appeal of the assessee on this issue. ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 19. On the issue of deduction of Rs.43,678/- as pointed out by the Special Auditor

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. The Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, Raigad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 543/PUN/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

payment was made. He accordingly allowed the appeal of the assessee on this issue. 18. On the issue of disallowance of contribution to approved gratuity fund, the Ld. CIT(A) relying upon various decisions held that the assessee is entitled for deduction in respect of initial contribution made ... approved gratuity fund subject to the limitations laid down in Rule 104 of the I.T. Rules, 1962. He accordingly allowed the appeal of the assessee on this issue. ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 19. On the issue of deduction of Rs.43,678/- as pointed out by the Special Auditor

Jawahar Lal Nehru Port Trust, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Panvel, Panvel

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1155/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

payment was made. He accordingly allowed the appeal of the assessee on this issue. 18. On the issue of disallowance of contribution to approved gratuity fund, the Ld. CIT(A) relying upon various decisions held that the assessee is entitled for deduction in respect of initial contribution made ... approved gratuity fund subject to the limitations laid down in Rule 104 of the I.T. Rules, 1962. He accordingly allowed the appeal of the assessee on this issue. ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 19. On the issue of deduction of Rs.43,678/- as pointed out by the Special Auditor

Jawahar Lal Nehru Port Trust, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Panvel, Panvel

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1154/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

payment was made. He accordingly allowed the appeal of the assessee on this issue. 18. On the issue of disallowance of contribution to approved gratuity fund, the Ld. CIT(A) relying upon various decisions held that the assessee is entitled for deduction in respect of initial contribution made ... approved gratuity fund subject to the limitations laid down in Rule 104 of the I.T. Rules, 1962. He accordingly allowed the appeal of the assessee on this issue. ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 19. On the issue of deduction of Rs.43,678/- as pointed out by the Special Auditor

Jawahar Lal Nehru Port Trust, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Panvel, Panvel

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1153/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

payment was made. He accordingly allowed the appeal of the assessee on this issue. 18. On the issue of disallowance of contribution to approved gratuity fund, the Ld. CIT(A) relying upon various decisions held that the assessee is entitled for deduction in respect of initial contribution made ... approved gratuity fund subject to the limitations laid down in Rule 104 of the I.T. Rules, 1962. He accordingly allowed the appeal of the assessee on this issue. ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 19. On the issue of deduction of Rs.43,678/- as pointed out by the Special Auditor

Ultra Corpotech P L Employee Group Gratuity Cum Life Assurance Scheme, Pune vs. ITO, Exemption, Ward-1(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1667/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 10Section 10(25)Section 10(25)(iv)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

assessee is exempt u/s.10(25)(iv) of the Act which provides that any income received by the trustees on behalf of an approved gratuity fund is exempt. He also submitted that there is no requirement for the assessee to furnish any Tax Report on Form 10B. He also submitted that ... provisions of section 10(25(iv) of the Act which provides that “any income received by the trustees on behalf of an approved gratuity fund” is exempt from tax. 4 Ultra Corpotech P L Employee Group Gratuity Cum Life Assurance Scheme 7. However, on perusal of the income tax return

Jasmina Trust, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

The appeals are allowed with event to follow accordingly

ITA 2211/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Smt. Vasanti Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 167(1)Section 167BSection 234C

Board have been advised that cases where income received by the trustees on behalf of a recognized provident fund, approved superannuation fund and approved gratuity fund is governed by section 10(25) of the Income-tax Act, the question of their being charged to tax does not arise

DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed, and the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4069/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry – Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta - CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 260ASection 43BSection 45Section 801ASection 801A(4)

During the year under consideration, the assessee claimed a deduction of Rs.11,93,07,615/- comprising contributions payable to the approved gratuity fund, bonus and leave salary, which are covered under clauses (b) to (f) of section 43B of the Act. The assessee claimed a deduction of these amounts

Grasim Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2897/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry – Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta - CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 260ASection 43BSection 45Section 801ASection 801A(4)

During the year under consideration, the assessee claimed a deduction of Rs.11,93,07,615/- comprising contributions payable to the approved gratuity fund, bonus and leave salary, which are covered under clauses (b) to (f) of section 43B of the Act. The assessee claimed a deduction of these amounts

Tulsi Trust, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1410/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwaltulsi Trust Dy. Cit, B-60/61, C/O Bajaj Auto Circle-49(1), Limited, Naraina Industrial Vs. New Delhi. Area Phase-Ii, New Delhi-110028 Pan-Aaatt0503H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mahender Gohel, Ar (Virtual) Department By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2025 O R D E R [ Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl./ Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Hyderabad [Cit(A) In Short], Dated 26.03.2025 In Appeal No. Addl. / Jcit-(A) - 4 Hyderabad/10061/2022-23 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) For Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Trust & Filed Its Return Of Income On 21.07.2022 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.5,67,53,750/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) By The Cpc Tulsi Trust Vs. Dcit Wherein The Assessee Was Charged Tax At A Flat Rate Of 30% & Surcharge As Applicable As Against The Normal Rate Of Tax As Per The Slab Provided In The Act Paid By The Assessee. Against The Said Order, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee.

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 250

Board have been advised that cases where income received by the trustees on behalf of a recognized provident fund, approved superannuation fund and approved gratuity fund is governed by section 10(25) of the Income-tax Act, the question of their being charged to tax does not arise

Fis Solutions (India) Gratuity Trust, Pune vs. DCIT Circle 3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/PUN/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A VazeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 10(25)(iv)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234B

gross revenue. 6. Without prejudice, the Learned AO erred in computing tax on gross revenue of ₹96,07,736. The appellant is an approved gratuity fund trust, and as per Section 10(25)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, all income received on behalf of the approved gratuity fund ... Pune Commissionerate. For AY 2013-14, the assessee filed its return of income on 27.09.2013 declaring „Nil‟ income. The entire income of the approved Gratuity Fund is exempt u/s 10(25)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). The return was processed

Asianet Satellite Communications Limited, Thiruvananthapuram vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 475/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 40A(7)

income, the Assessing Officer (AO) made several additions. The disallowance interalia includes disallowance of claim for deduction of provisions for gratuity payable to approved gratuity fund made during the course of assessment proceedings placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India ... merits, he submits that notwithstanding the provisions of section (43B), the provisions of gratuity payable to approved gratuity fund is allowable as deduction u/s. 40A(7) of the Act as held by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Common Welfare Trust

Asianet Satellite Communications Limited, Thiruvananthapuram vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 474/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 40A(7)

income, the Assessing Officer (AO) made several additions. The disallowance interalia includes disallowance of claim for deduction of provisions for gratuity payable to approved gratuity fund made during the course of assessment proceedings placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India ... merits, he submits that notwithstanding the provisions of section (43B), the provisions of gratuity payable to approved gratuity fund is allowable as deduction u/s. 40A(7) of the Act as held by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Common Welfare Trust

Rose Trust, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-49(1), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3036/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2021-22

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 167BSection 234C

received by the trustees on behalf of a recognized provident fund, approved superannuation fund and 6 A.Y. 2021-22 Rose Trust v. DCIT approved gratuity fund is governed by section 10(25) of the Income-tax Act, the question of their being charged to tax does not arise

Vindhya Trust, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 131/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanvindhya Trust, Vs. Dcit, Circle 49 (1), B – 60/61, C/O Bajaj Auto Limited, Delhi. Naraina Industrial Estate, Delhi – 110 028. (Pan : Aaatv0303K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mahender Gohel, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ramesh Chand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.05.2025 Date Of Order : 23.07.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Addl/Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) – 3, Hyderabad [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Jcit (A)] Dated 12.11.2024 For Assessment Year 2021-22 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “Ground 1 - Rate Of Tax: The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Has Erred In Upholding Levy Of Tax At Flat Rate Of30%, Instead Of Normal Slab Rates Applicable In The Case Of The Appellant. The Learned Cit(A) & The Learned Assessing Officer Failed To Appreciate That The Appellant Is An Association Of Persons (Aop)/Charitable Trust Not Claiming Benefits Of Section 11 Of The Act & Is Liable To Pay Tax At The Slab Rates Applicable In The Case Of An Individual, Etc. The Appellant Prays That The Learned Assessing Officer Be Directed To Re-Compute

For Appellant: Shri Mahender Gohel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Chand, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 167BSection 234BSection 234C

Board have been advised that cases where income received by the trustees on behalf of a recognized provident fund, approved superannuation fund and approved gratuity fund is governed by section 10(25) of the Income-tax Act, the question of their being charged to tax does not arise