9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-II, Bombay, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred following questions for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Assessment year 1978-79: Question No. 1: "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, initial contribution by the assessee-company of Rs. 1,28,228 to superannuation fund was a allowable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, fairly stated that the issue is covered by the decision of the apex court in the case of CIT v. Sirpur Paper Mills [1999] 237 ITR 41 in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. As regards question No. 2 is concerned, the assessee had made ex gratia payment of Rs. 22,81,847 as additio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the agreement between the Mills Owner's Association and the employees union and hence, deductible under section 36(1)(ii). The Tribunal further held that the assessee's case was not covered by the second proviso to section 36(1)(ii). Mr. Desai, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, relied upon judgment of this court in the case of CIT v. Rajaram Bandekar and Sons (Shipping) P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or in accordance with any practice prevailing at the relevant time. In this view of the matter, we answer question No. 2 in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. As regards question No. 3 is concerned, Mr. R.V. Desai, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, relied upon the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. New Shorrock Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd. [1995] 212 ITR 355, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Hyderabad Race Club [1979] 120 ITR 185 and held that the ceiling specified in sub-section (4) applies to the aggregate of the sums in respect of which deduction is claimed and not to the amount of deduction allowed under sub-section (1) which has to be computed in the manner specified therein. In this view of the matter, we answer question No. 3 in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
