TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 542X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egulations, 1979 - HELD THAT:- Nature of deduction claimed by the assessee in respect of the payments made in terms of the statutory regulation would fall within the general deductions under Section 37 and cannot be brought u/s 36(1)(iv) and (v) of the Act. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal are perfectly in order. Furthermore, the payments effected in terms of the Retirement Regulations, 1979 have been strictly made to the retired employees' account after deduction of tax at source wherever applicable. In respect of the claim for deduction on similar grounds made by the assessee for the earlier assessment years, the same has been granted and these contentions advanced by the assessee before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal were not disputed, neither there is any material placed before us to show that the assessee was factually wrong in raising such a contention. Therefore, we hold that the assessee having been granted similar benefit for the earlier years, the same cannot be denied for the subsequent years, especially when, the nature of payment is in the same fashion in terms of a statutory regulation. Revenue has not made out any ground to interfer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in paragraph 12 of the impugned order, the Tribunal holds that there is no clarity as to how the computation of depreciation has been made and it opined that the quantum of depreciation allowable to the assessee for the impugned assessment years requires a re-visit by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the finding was set aside and the matter has been remanded back to the Assessing Officer for consideration afresh in accordance with law. 5.In our considered view, the first and second substantial questions of law would not arise for consideration, since the matter has been remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. Therefore, the first and second substantial questions of law are not answered and are left open. 6.The third substantial question of law is pertaining to whether the expenditure incurred by the respondent/assessee is allowable under Section 37(1) of the Act, even after allowing expenditure under Section 36(1)(iv) and (v) of the Act. 7.It is the submission of Mr.M.Swaminathan that Section 36(1) of the Act states that deductions provided for in sub-Clauses (i) to (xvi) under sub-Section (1) of Section 36 shall be al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ai (for brevity, the CIT(A) ), in the appeals filed by the assessee challenging the assessment orders. The CIT(A) took note of all the written submissions made by the assessee. For better appreciation, we refer to the finding recorded by the CIT(A) in its order dated 24.03.2016 in I.T.A.No.110/2015-16 for the assessment year 2012-13. 12.The assessee submitted that they are making pension payments to its retired employees directly into their bank accounts after deducting tax at source, wherever applicable as per Tuticorin Port Trust Employees Retirement Regulations, 1979 as approved and notified by the Government of India, and these payments are accounted as pension payments and the same represents regular business expenditure of the assessee, as there is contractual and statutory obligation to pay the pension to the retired employees and the annual contribution to the newly created recognized superannuation fund and gratuity fund were utilized for paying commuted pension for employees, who retired during the financial year and also for making payments towards gratuity at the time of retirement of employees. It is contended that the above facts were explained to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e carried the matter on appeal to the Tribunal. It was contended before the Tribunal that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 23,28,13,876/- (AY 2012-13) made on account of claim of expenditure paid directly to its retired employees under Section 37 because, it has not been routed through the recognised post trust pension fund. This contention was considered by the Tribunal and was rejected. The finding rendered by the Tribunal is contained in paragraph 16. 16.We approve the said finding of the Tribunal for the following reasons. Admittedly, the Revenue has not disputed the fact that there is an approved gratuity fund created by the employer, viz., the respondent/assessee and the payment made towards such fund to the expenditure of ₹ 20 crore was allowed as a deduction. The deduction of the sum of ₹ 23.28 crores is sought to be denied on the ground that it was not routed through the pension fund. This contention raised by the Revenue is liable to be rejected for the simple reason that the Government of India has approved and notified an Employees Retirement Regulations termed as the Tuticorin Port Trust Employees Regulations, 1979 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
