Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2014 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 765 - DELHI HIGH COURTObligations mentioned u/s 11(2) fulfilled or not - Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that by mentioning “Further utilization” in Form No. 10 read with Rule 17 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 the Assessee has fulfilled its obligation as required u/s 11(2) – Held that:- THE Tribunal rightly observed that the assessee had mentioned the words “further utilization” in column No. 1 of Form No. 10, which meant that the assessee was to utilize the funds for the benefit of the members i.e. the employees of the New Bank of India in case of death, retirement and permanent disability - the funds were paid/given to the employees of New Bank of India in the eventualities and it was in this context, the words “further utilization” had been mentioned - assessee was to provide financial assistance to the members in case of death, retirement and permanent disability - This was the sole and only purpose for which funds could be utilized - the description “further utilization” was neither vague nor unspecific. During the course of assessment proceeding, the assessee has clarified and stated that the money would only be used for the purpose of making payments to the members or their legal representatives in case of their death, retirement or permanent disability - The Tribunal rightly referred to the scheme floated by the assessee under which the employees who were desirous of becoming members had to deposit ₹ 10/- as admission fees and thereafter pay ₹ 25/- per month for a period of 25 years - other benefits which were specified in part (b) of the Scheme, which stipulated that a sum of ₹ 500/- shall be paid to the members on the event specified – the order of the Tribunal is upheld - Decided against revenue.
|