← All Phrases

“approved superannuation fund”

Chapter I - PreliminarySection 2 - DefinitionsSection 2(6) / Part B of Fourth Schedule / ITR Part A-OI65 judgments

The decision most relied on for approved superannuation fund is CIT v. Sirpur Paper Mills (237 ITR 41), cited in 24 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on approved superannuation fund

CIT v. Sirpur Paper Mills
237 ITR 41 · 1999 · Supreme Court
24
citing judgments

The amplitude of a deduction permitted by a section cannot be cut down by imposing conditions that rewrite the section.

CIT v. L.W. Russel
53 ITR 91 · 1964 · Supreme Court
15
citing judgments

Payments made by an employer towards pension or annuity schemes are not taxable as perquisites in the hands of the employee unless the employee has acquired a vested right in the sum paid. Similarly, employer contributions to approved superannuation funds are not perquisites if the employee has no vested right.

Judgments citing approved superannuation fund

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

ITA 2209/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

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

such business. The 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

Biswas Manik, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(4), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 770/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pratik Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 133(6)Section 17Section 17(2)(v)

perquisite" includes- (v) :any sum payable by the employer, whether directly or through a fund, other than a recognized provident fund or an approved superannuation fund or a Deposit-linked Insurance Fund established under section 3G of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions

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

such business. The Board have been advised that cases where income 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

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

such business. The 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

Adani Infrastructure Management Services Limited, Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 580/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

provisions of the Income Tax Act, for a contribution to the Employees' Superannuation Fund to qualify for deduction, the fund must be an "approved Superannuation Fund". However, the details regarding whether the fund in question was an "approved" fund were not available on records. Verification of whether the fund

Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Uti Asset Management Company Limited Employees Provident Fund, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2022/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2022/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-19) Ito, 23(3)(1), Mumbai V/S. Uti Asset Management 5Th Floor, Room No. 525A, बिधम Company Ltd. Employees Piramal Chambers, Parel, Provident Fund Mumbai-400012 5Th Floor Doaa, Uti Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatu2391J Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Jayant Bhatt/Shri FaheemFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna
Section 10Section 10(25)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250

Provident Funds Act, 1925 (19 of 1925) referred to in sub-clause (1), recognized provident fund referred to in sub- clause (ii), approved superannuation funds referred to in sub-clause (iii), approved gratuity fund referred to in sub-clause (iv) and funds referred to in sub-clause (v) of clause

National Association of Interlocking Surgeons, Solapur, Maharashtra vs. The ITO, Exemption Ward 1(2), Pune, Maharashtra

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2817/PUN/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2816, 2817 & 2560/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2014-15 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay K. Dhivare
Section 154Section 167ASection 167BSection 250

such business. The Board have been advised that cases where income received by the trustees on behalf of a recognised 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

National Association of Interlocking Surgeons, Solapur, Maharashtra vs. The ITO, Exemption Ward 1(2), Pune, Maharashtra

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2816/PUN/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2816, 2817 & 2560/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2014-15 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay K. Dhivare
Section 154Section 167ASection 167BSection 250

such business. The Board have been advised that cases where income received by the trustees on behalf of a recognised 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

National Association of Interlocking Surgeons, Solapur, Maharashtra vs. The ITO, Exemption Ward 1(2), Pune, Maharashtra

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2560/PUN/2024[AAATN9300L]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2816, 2817 & 2560/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2014-15 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay K. Dhivare
Section 154Section 167ASection 167BSection 250

such business. The Board have been advised that cases where income received by the trustees on behalf of a recognised 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

Mr. Venkataraman Swaminathan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncc-19(1), Chennai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2603/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2603/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 Mr.Venkataraman Swaminathan, Income Tax Officer, No.28/1, Velu Street, Non.Corporate Circle-19(1), West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai-600 033. [Pan: Aasps3855R] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri D.Anand, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iv)

under:- (iv) “….any sum paid by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution towards a recognized provident fund or an approved superannuation fund, subject to such limits as may be prescribed for the purpose of recognizing the provident fund or approving the superannuation fund, as the case ... substantive law prescribing sanction of deduction to assessee’s as an employer by way of contribution towards a recognized provident fund or an approved superannuation fund and Rule 87 provides the procedural part of it postulating that a threshold limit of 27% shall apply in respect of each specific employee

Mayurakshi Gramin Bank Employees Provident Fund, Pbgb Regional, Suri, Birbhum vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 3, Suri, Birbhum

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

ITA 1159/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1159/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Mayurakshi Gramin Bank Employees Provident Fund,………………………………………Appellant Pbgb Regional, Suri Birbhum-731101, West Bengal [Pan:Aabtm2580Q] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,……...Respondent Circle-3, Suri, Aayakar Bhawan, Lalkuthipara, Suri, Birbhum-731101, W.B. Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsian, Advocate & Ms. Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Subhro Das, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: January 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: January 31, 2025 O R D E R

Section 10Section 10(25)Section 10(25)(ii)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 254

income received by the trustees on behalf of a recognised provident fund; (iii)any income received by the trustees on behalf of an approved superannuation fund; (iv)any income received by the trustees on behalf of an approved gratuity fund; (v)any income received— (a)by the Board of Trustees ... Provident Funds Act, 1925 (19 of 1925) referred to in sub-clause (i), recognised provident fund referred to in sub-clause (ii), approved superannuation funds referred to in sub-clause (iii), approved gratuity fund referred to in sub-clause (iv) and funds referred to in sub-clause (v) of clause

Indira Gandhi Institute of Technology, Saranga vs. ITO, Exemption, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 375/CTK/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2015-16 Indira Gandhi Institute Of Indira Gandhi Institute Of Vs. Ito, Ito, Exemption, Exemption, Technology, Technology, Saranga, Saranga, Bhubaneswar. Kamakhya Kamakhya Nagar, Nagar, Dist: Dhenkanal-759146 759146 Pan/Gir No. No.Aaati 5050 J (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Natabar Panda, Adv Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/01/20 2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/01/20 025 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri Natabar Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Section 10Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 197A

Provident Funds Act, 1925 (19 of 1925) referred to in sub-clause (i), recognised provident fund referred to in sub-clause (ii), approved superannuation funds referred to in sub-clause (iii), approved gratuity fund referred to in sub-clause (iv) and funds referred to in sub-clause (v) of clause

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Patiala vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 659/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saldi, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

under: “10.3 Under the existing provisions of the 1961 Act, the contribution made by an employer towards a recognised provident fund, an approved superannuation fund or an approved gratuity fund is allowable as a deduction from business income under clauses (iv) and (v) respectively, of section 36(1), subject

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Patiala vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 645/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saldi, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

under: “10.3 Under the existing provisions of the 1961 Act, the contribution made by an employer towards a recognised provident fund, an approved superannuation fund or an approved gratuity fund is allowable as a deduction from business income under clauses (iv) and (v) respectively, of section 36(1), subject

ACIT, Circle-34, Kolkata vs. Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata

In the result, all the grounds filed by the Revenue in all the four years are hereby dismissed

ITA 999/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: proceeding for adjudicating this matter, it is noticed that the 4 appeals filed by the Department are barred by limitation, comprising of delay ranging from 119 days to 129 days. The application for said condonation of delay are almost identically worded. For the sake of convenience, the application for AY 2018-19 is extracted as under: “1. Order of CIT (A) was received in the office of the PCIT-5, Kolkata on 23.01.2024.

Section 148A

from various portions of the Ld. AO’s order and assailed the action of Ld. CIT(A). On the issue of contribution to approved superannuation fund to bridge the gap between actuarial valuation and actual contribution, the Ld. DR stated that on a strict construction of section ... rival submissions and gone through the orders of authorities below. It is clear that regarding the first issue of contribution made to approved superannuation fund to bridge the gap between actual contribution and actuarial valuations, the order of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Exide Industries

ACIT, Circle -34, Kolkata vs. Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata

In the result, all the grounds filed by the Revenue in all the four years are hereby dismissed

ITA 981/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: proceeding for adjudicating this matter, it is noticed that the 4 appeals filed by the Department are barred by limitation, comprising of delay ranging from 119 days to 129 days. The application for said condonation of delay are almost identically worded. For the sake of convenience, the application for AY 2018-19 is extracted as under: “1. Order of CIT (A) was received in the office of the PCIT-5, Kolkata on 23.01.2024.

Section 148A

from various portions of the Ld. AO’s order and assailed the action of Ld. CIT(A). On the issue of contribution to approved superannuation fund to bridge the gap between actuarial valuation and actual contribution, the Ld. DR stated that on a strict construction of section ... rival submissions and gone through the orders of authorities below. It is clear that regarding the first issue of contribution made to approved superannuation fund to bridge the gap between actual contribution and actuarial valuations, the order of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Exide Industries

ACIT, Circle-34, Kolkata vs. Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata

In the result, all the grounds filed by the Revenue in all the four years are hereby dismissed

ITA 1001/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: proceeding for adjudicating this matter, it is noticed that the 4 appeals filed by the Department are barred by limitation, comprising of delay ranging from 119 days to 129 days. The application for said condonation of delay are almost identically worded. For the sake of convenience, the application for AY 2018-19 is extracted as under: “1. Order of CIT (A) was received in the office of the PCIT-5, Kolkata on 23.01.2024.

Section 148A

from various portions of the Ld. AO’s order and assailed the action of Ld. CIT(A). On the issue of contribution to approved superannuation fund to bridge the gap between actuarial valuation and actual contribution, the Ld. DR stated that on a strict construction of section ... rival submissions and gone through the orders of authorities below. It is clear that regarding the first issue of contribution made to approved superannuation fund to bridge the gap between actual contribution and actuarial valuations, the order of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Exide Industries

ACIT, Circle -34, Kolkata vs. Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata

In the result, all the grounds filed by the Revenue in all the four years are hereby dismissed

ITA 1000/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: proceeding for adjudicating this matter, it is noticed that the 4 appeals filed by the Department are barred by limitation, comprising of delay ranging from 119 days to 129 days. The application for said condonation of delay are almost identically worded. For the sake of convenience, the application for AY 2018-19 is extracted as under: “1. Order of CIT (A) was received in the office of the PCIT-5, Kolkata on 23.01.2024.

Section 148A

from various portions of the Ld. AO’s order and assailed the action of Ld. CIT(A). On the issue of contribution to approved superannuation fund to bridge the gap between actuarial valuation and actual contribution, the Ld. DR stated that on a strict construction of section ... rival submissions and gone through the orders of authorities below. It is clear that regarding the first issue of contribution made to approved superannuation fund to bridge the gap between actual contribution and actuarial valuations, the order of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Exide Industries

M/S. Multi Service, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 39(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1180/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Natabrata Bhattacharya, ARFor Respondent: L.N. Dash, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250

Part-XIV of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. It is submitted that Part-XII deals with 'Recognized Provident Funds', Part-XIII deals with 'Approved Superannuation Funds' and Part-XIV deals with Gratuity Funds'. It is further submitted that each part deals with different type of social security payments and have ... Rule 87 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 it is apparent that the maximum limit of 27% prescribed under this Rule pertain to 'Approved Superannuation Funds' and not ‘Recognized Provident Funds’. (iii) It is submitted that in the present case, the provident fund of the Appellant is functioning under