“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

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

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

JCIT (OSD) Circle-2, Trichy vs. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year

ITA 635/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 620/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, V. Tax, Finance &Control Dept., Circle -2(1), Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 635/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, The Joint Commissioner Of V. Finance &Control Dept., Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2, Karur – 639 002. No.44, Williams Road, [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] Contanment, Trichy – 620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Ananthan, Ca & Smt. R. Lalitha, Ca Department By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. Ananthan, CA & Smt. R. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 145Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)(v)

said payment could not be deducted under section 36(1)(iv) because it was not a contribution to an approved superannuation fund, such payment could not be deducted under section 28 on general principle in arriving at profits and gains of business in a commercial sense

M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, Karur vs. DCIT, Circle - 2 (1), Trichy

ITA 620/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 620/Chny/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Finance &Control Dept., V. Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2(1), Karur - 639 002. Trichy. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 635/Chny/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -2, No.44, Williams Road, Contanment, Trichy - 620 001. V. M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, Finance &Control Dept., Erode Road, Karur - 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Assessee By : Shri. Ananthan, Ca & Smt. R. Lalitha, Ca Department By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Two Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Trichy, Dated 16.03.2020 & Pertains To

For Appellant: Shri. Ananthan, CA & Smt. R. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 145Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)(v)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एबी टी वर्की, न्यायिक

Schneider Electric Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT 3, Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 1568/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1568/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & +े यािचका सं../ S.A No.28/Chny/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1568/Chny/2024) (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Schneider Electric Systems India P. Ltd. Pcit Sp Plot No.16-19 & 20A, Chennai-3. बनाम/ Taramani Tech Park Inner Ring Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Vs. Guindy Industrial Estate S.O. Guindy, Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcs-8027-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Rohit Tiwari (Advocate) (Virtual) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari (Advocate) (Virtual) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 37Section 40A(9)

verify the receipts furnished by the assessee. As per the provisions of Sec. 36(1)(iv), any sum paid by the assessee towards approved superannuation fund would only be allowable as deduction. Since the payment was not to an approved fund, the same could not be allowed

A R J Fireworks, Sivakasi vs. ITO, Ward 1, Virudhunagar

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 443/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.443/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. Arj Fireworks Ito बनाम/ Ward-1 184, Palaniandavarpuram Colony, Vs. Virudhunagar. Sivakasi-626 123. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapfa-4749-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri P.M.Kathir (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R.Mukundan(Jcit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Kathir (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R.Mukundan(JCIT)-Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iv)

filed by the assessee dated 14.06.2022. To decide the matter, we need to take cognizance of Part-XII, Recognized Provident Funds, Part-XIII, Approved Superannuation Funds and Part-XIV Gratuity Funds. 6. Rule-75 deals with limit for contribution in Recognized Provident Funds, Rule- 87 deals with Ordinary Annual Contributions ... Approved Superannuation Funds and Rule-103 deals with Ordinary Annual Contributions to Gratuity Funds. 7. Limits for contributions as per Part-XII, Recognized Provident Funds. “75. (1) where an employee of a company owns shares in the company with a voting power exceeding ten per cent of the whole

Tirupur Thozhil Pathukappu Kulu, Tiruppur vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1086/CHNY/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri R. Viswanathan, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.Suresh, JCIT

Section 10(25)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 164(1)(iv)Section 167A

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 Stock Exchange of India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result ground no.1 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed and grounds no

ITA 730/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.730 & 731/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18) National Stock Exchange Vs. Dcit, Circle 7(1)(1) Of India Limited Room No. 126, 1 St Floor, Exchange Plaza, Bandra Aaykar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Bandra M.K. Road, East, Mumbai – 400051 Churchgate -400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacn1797L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Jehangir Mistri Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Srinivasu

Other Deductions' (IV) any sum paid by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution towards a recognised provident fund or an approved superannuation fund (iva) any sum paid by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution towards a pension scheme, as referred to in section 80CCD

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

making payment M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. to its employees under retirement pension plan by supplementing the amount payable by the LIC under approved superannuation fund. The Assessing Officer however, did not find force in the submissions of the assessee. He observed that the assessee has claimed liability on account

Society of Indian Automobile Manufactures Supernnuation Scheme Trust, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Banglore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1871/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Deepesh Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Kant Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(25)(i)Section 10(25)(iii)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234B

assessee, the income is exempt u/s 10(25)(iii) which exempts any income received by the trustees on behalf of and approved superannuation fund. The return of income was filed in ITR-7 and in column pertaining to section under which exemption claimed, Section 11 was mentioned. It was also

Society of Indian Automobile Manufactures Supernnuation Scheme Trust, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Banglore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1870/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Deepesh Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Kant Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(25)(i)Section 10(25)(iii)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234B

Ours Youth Club, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 22/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.22/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Ours Youth Club Vs. Income Tax Officer 1-19-17, Bc Colony Agraharam Ward-1 Vizianagaram Vijayanagaram [Pan : Aaaao2600H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Ld.AR further submitted that the rule 87 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 falls under Part XIII-‘Approved Superannuation Fund’, the word ‘annaul contribution’ in the said rule refers to contribution made by the employer in a year towards Superannuation fund of the employee and it does not apply ... appeal of the assessee on this ground. 6. The Ld.DR also conceded that rule 87 of IT Rules falls under Part XIII-Approved Superannuation Fund and not applicable to assessee’s case. 7. I have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In the instant case

Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

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

ITA 4564/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

would apply when deduction is claimed of any sum paid by an assessee as an employer towards a recognised provident fund or an approved superannuation fund or an approved gratuity fund. The amount of Rs.3,724 crores are clearly not a contribution towards any recognised provident fund or approved superannuation ... that sections 36(1)(iv) and 36(1)(v) of the Act specifically deal with contribution to a recognized provident fund or an approved superannuation fund or an approved gratuity fund. The said sections do not deal with providing for a liability vis-à-vis pension or any other retirement

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3645/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

Shri G Vijaya Raghava Raju, Kakinada vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Guntur

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 38/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari &For Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

payable by the employer, whether directly or through a fund, other than a recognised 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 Act, 1948 (46 of 1948), or, as the case

Shri G Vijaya Raghava Raju, Kakinada vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Guntur

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 37/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari &For Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

G Vijaya Raghava Raju, Kakinada vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Guntur

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 36/VIZ/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari &For Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

Sri Gottumukkala Vijaya Raghava Raju, Kakinada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2, Guntur

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 35/VIZ/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Apr 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari &For Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

Sri Gottumukkala Vijaya Raghava Raju, Kakinada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2, Guntur

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 34/VIZ/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Apr 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari &For Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

Sri Gottumukkala Vijaya Raghava Raju, Kakinada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2, Guntur

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 33/VIZ/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Apr 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari &For Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

M/S. Karnail Singh & Company, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Jalandhar

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 26/ASR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 154Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

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 may be; and subject

M/S. Karnail Singh & Company, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Jalandhar

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 25/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 154Section 2Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B