TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 649X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C. Devdas For the Respondent : Shri M. B. Reddy ORDER Per Asha Vijayaraghavan, J. M. This appeal preferred by the assessee is directed against the order of Dispute Resolution Panel (D.R.P.), Hyderabad, dated 03/08/2012 for the assessment year 2008-09. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee i.e. M/s Capital IQ Information Systems India Pvt. Ltd. filed its objections u/s 144C(2) before the Dispute Resolution Panel on 24/01/2012 against the draft assessment order of the Addl. CIT, Range-I, Hyderabad. The DRP passed its order on 03/08/2012 and the order u/s 143(3) read with section 144C(2) of the Act, 1961, was passed by the Addl. CIT, Range - 1, on 30/11/2012 in pursuance of the proceedings before the DRP. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivil Appeal No. 447 of 2003) wherein the Hon'ble SC has held that where the payment is made to the Gratuity Fund maintained with the LIC, the appellant has no control over the irrevocable trust created exclusively for the benefit of employees, deduction shall be allowed to the appellant." 8. We have heard the arguments of the parties, perused the material on record and have gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of M/s Sri Krishna Drugs Ltd. Vs. Department of Income-tax in ITA No. 2126/Hyd/2011 for AY 2007-08 dated 11/04/2012, where the JM was one of the party. The Tribunal in the said case held as follows:- 3. The second ground rais ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loyees under an irrevocable trust." We have also carefully gone through the provisions of sec. 37 of the Income-tax Act. Sec. 37 provides for deduction of expenditure not being in the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenditure of the assessee, but laid out and expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession, while computing income chargeable to tax. The main contention of the Revenue is that under sec. 36(1)(v), the payment made by the assessee as employer could be allowed only in respect of approved gratuity fund. Since the Group Gratuity Scheme is not approved by the CIT, according to the Revenue, it cannot be allowed. However, the conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
