Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › CIT vs. Textool Co. Ltd (Supreme Court)

CIT vs. Textool Co. Ltd (Supreme Court)

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 17, 2013 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (textool_gratuity_fund_LIC.pdf)


Though s. 36(1)(v) requires direct payment to the gratuity trust fund, payment to the LIC Group Gratuity Scheme is also allowable

The assessee set up a gratuity fund which was duly approved by the CIT. However, instead of making payment to the fund directly, the assessee paid an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs as initial contribution and an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs as annual premium to the Life Insurance Corporation (“LIC”) pursuant to the group Life Assurance Scheme framed by the LIC for the benefit of the employees of the assessee. The AO disallowed the claim for deduction on the ground that payment towards the gratuity fund was not made to an approved gratuity fund and was not allowable u/s 36(1)(v). The CIT(A), Tribunal and High Court (257 ITR 39 (Mad)) upheld the assessee’s claim on the basis that the payment to LIC under the Group Life Assurance Scheme was for the exclusive benefit of the employees of the assessee under the policy issued by it and that the conditions stipulated in s. 36(1)(v) had not been violated. On appeal by the department to the Supreme Court, HELD dismissing the appeal:

While it is true that a fiscal statute has to be construed strictly and nothing should be added to or subtracted from it, yet a strict construction of a provision does not rule out the application of the principles of reasonable construction to give effect to the purpose and intention of any particular provision of the Act. From a bare reading of s. 36(1)(v), it is manifest that the real intention behind the provision is that the employer should not have any control over the funds of the irrevocable trust created exclusively for the benefit of the employees. On facts, it is evident that the assessee had absolutely no control over the fund created by the LIC for the benefit of the employees of the assessee and further all the contribution made by the assessee in the said fund ultimately came back to the Textool Employees Gratuity Fund, approved by the CIT. Thus, the conditions stipulated in s. 36(1)(v) were satisfied.

Note: Though the judgement is old, it is not reported yet. It has great relevance in the context of the Q whether payments to the LIC leave encashment scheme is allowable u/s 43B(f)

Related Judgements

  1. CIT vs. Enron Oil & Gas (Supreme Court) 

    Where the assessee had entered into a production sharing contract with a consortium which was governed by section 42 of the Act and the assessee made contribution at a certain rate to the consortium whereas the expenditure incurred out of the said contribution stood converted on the basis of…
  2. CIT vs. Sarabhai Holdings (Supreme Court) 

    Where the assessee entered into an agreement for transfer of its industrial undertaking under which the buyer agreed to pay it interest on the unpaid consideration w.e.f 1.3.1977 and subsequently on 30.6.1978 the parties agreed to defer the date of commencement of interest to 1.7.1979 and the question arose…
  3. CIT vs. Vatika Township (Supreme Court) 

    In CIT vs. Suresh N. Gupta 297 ITR 322, the Supreme Court held that the Provio to s. 113 (which imposes surcharge on block assessments), though inserted only with effect from 1.6.2002, was applicable to searches conducted prior to that date as it was ‘clarificatory’ and ‘curative’ in nature….
  4. Techno Shares & Stocks vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    Under Rule 5 of the BSE Rules, membership is a personal permission from the Exchange which is nothing but a “licence” which enables the member to exercise rights and privileges attached thereto. It is this licence which enables the member to trade on the floor of the Exchange and…
  5. Vodafone International Holdings B.V. vs. UOI (Supreme Court) 

    The High Court’s finding that, applying the “nature and character of the transaction” test, the transfer of the CGP share was not adequate in itself to achieve the object of consummating the transaction between HTIL and VIH and that there was a transfer of other “rights and entitlements” which…
One comment on “CIT vs. Textool Co. Ltd (Supreme Court)”
  1. Bidyut Sarkar says:
    June 18, 2013 at 2:06 pm

    Thanking you for posting the abridged judgment of the Hon’ble S.C. in the case of CIT v. Textool Co. Ltd. which will be of immense help to the I.T. practitioner. Legislative intention of creating a statute must be seen while construing a fiscal statute also.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*