| COURT: | Bombay High Court |
| CORAM: | Akil Kureshi J, S. J. Kathawallla J |
| SECTION(S): | 40A(9) |
| GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | business expenditure, disallowance |
| COUNSEL: | Atul Jasani, Nitesh Joshi, P.J. Pardiwalla |
| DATE: | June 18, 2019 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | June 24, 2019 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | - |
| FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
| CITATION: | |
| S. 40A(9): The provision is not meant to hit genuine expenditure by an employer for the welfare and the benefit of the employees. Even contributions to unapproved and unrecognized funds have to be allowed as a deduction if they are genuine in nature | |
The very purpose of insertion of sub-section (9) of section 40A thus was to restrict the claim of expenditure by the employers towards contribution to funds, trust, association of persons etc. which was wholly discretionary and did not impose any restriction or condition for expanding such funds which had possibility of misdirecting or misuse of such funds after the employer claimed benefit of deduction thereof. In plain terms, this provision was not meant to hit genuine expenditure by an employer for the welfare and the benefit of the employees
Recent Comments