Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

The ACIT Versus M/s. Rajasthan State Seeds Corporation Ltd

2016 (1) TMI 362 - ITAT JAIPUR

Prior period expenses - CIT(A)allowed the claim - Held that:- AO has filed the complete details of the prior period expenses of ₹ 1,96,917/-. Vide letter dated 26.4.2008, vouchers in respect of the same were filed. From the details we note that the approval for payment of these expenditure were given during the year and therefore the liability crystalised during the year in view of these facts and the consistent view of this Bench that the liability crystalised on approval of payment, we f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Therefore the scheme cannot be taken as not approved. The assessee can’t be made to suffer for inaction of the department. Considering these facts, this Bench in assessee’s own case of A.Y. 1996-97 & 1997-98 itat allowed the claim of the assessee - Decided in favour of assessee

Contribution to State Renewal Fund - CIT(A) treated as allowable expenditure - Held that:- This issue is covered in favour of the assessee as the amount was set apart not for shareholder but it was provided for .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

owing grounds have been raised by the Revenue. (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding prior period expenses as allowable expenses. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction for the contribution of ₹ 6,99,566/- made to an unapproved gratuity fund. (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erre .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

009 in the case of ACIT vs. M/s. Rajasthan State Road Development Construction Corporation Ltd., Jaipur 2.3 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. As regards Ground No. 1 of the Revenue, we find that ITAT Jaipur Bench has decided this issue in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2006-07 in favour of the assessee vide its order dated 21- 08-2009 in ITA No. 307/JP/2009 by following observations. 5. Briefly stated, the assessee claimed prior p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. From the details we note that the approval for payment of these expenditure were given during the year and therefore the liability crystalised during the year in view of these facts and the consistent view of this Bench that the liability crystalised on approval of payment, we find no infirmity in the order of ld.CIT (A) deleting the disallowance. Therefore, the ground No.2 of the Revenue is dismissed. 2.3.1 As regards ground No. 2 of the Revenue, we find that ITAT Jaipur Bench has decided thi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as claimed to have applied for approval of LIC Group Gratuity Fund on 31.03.1981 and even after a long lapse of time, the approval has not been granted. Thus the assesee s group gratuity scheme has not been approved. As per section 36(1)(v), sum paid for gratuity funds is deductible if such payment is made towards contribution to approved gratuity fund. Further, section 40A (7) provides that a provision for gratuity fund will not be admissible, unless it is towards contribution to approved gratu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ubmissions, we find that there is no dispute as to the fact that assessee has applied for approval of the scheme on 31.03.1981. The A O has not brought any material on record that the approval to the scheme is not allowed. Therefore the scheme cannot be taken as not approved. The assessee can t be made to suffer for inaction of the department. Considering these facts, this Bench in assessee s own case of A.Y. 1996-97 & 1997-98 in ITA No. 58, 238/JP/2002 dated 23-09-2005 and again in A.Y. 200 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version