Rajasthan H.C : The Gratuity Scheme created by the assessee and allowed under Section 36(1)(v)
High Court Of Rajasthan CIT vs. Jaipur Thar Gramin Bank Section : 36(1)(V) Assessment Years 2007-08 To 2009 Ajay Rastogi […]
Section 36, Sec. 36(1)(v)
Sec. 36(1)(v)
Sec. 194A, Sec. 36(1)(v)
Karnataka H.C : Whether the gratuity payable to its employees is available for deduction?
High Court Of Karnataka CIT, Belgaum vs. Shri Siddeshwar Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Section 194A, 36(1)(V) Anand Byrareddy And L. Narayana
Sec. 36(1)(v), Sec. 40A(7), Section 4
Karnataka H.C : The exchange gain earned by the assessee was revenue in nature and in that way in ordering for addition of the same to the income of the assessee
High Court Of Karnataka Motor Industries Co. Ltd. vs. CIT Sections 4, 36(1)(v), 40A(7) Asst. Year 1978-79 R. Gururajan &
Sec. 36(1)(iv), Sec. 36(1)(v), Sec. 37(1), Section 43B
Delhi H.C : the AO was that it had entered into an agreement with the LIC of India and made contributions towards gratuity and superannuation funds for the benefit of its employees
High Court Of Delhi Sony India (P) Ltd. vs. CIT Sections 36(1)(iv), 36(1)(v), 37(1), 43B Asst. Year 1998-99 T.S. Thakur
Sec. 36(1)(v), Sec. 37(1), Section 36
Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to provisions of r. 103 of the IT Rules, 1962, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee-company is eligible for deduction of gratuity of Rs. 3,41,202 as admissible under s. 36(1)(v) of the IT Act, 1961 ?
High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Premier Cotton Spg. Mills Ltd. Sections 36(1)(v), 37(1) Asst. Year 1974-75 V.S. Sirpurkar &
Sec. 36(1)(v), Sec. 37(1)
Bombay H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 3,70,755 incurred by the assessee as retirement compensation was for maintaining good relations with the employees and for the welfare of the employees and hence allowable as revenue expenditure ?
High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Sinnar Bidi Udyog Ltd. Sections 36(1)(v), 37(1) Asst. Year 1989-90 H.L. Gokhale & J.P.
Sec. 36(1)(v)
Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in allowing the deduction of Rs. 55,84,754 being the payment made by the assessee-company directly to LIC towards Group Gratuity Fund under s. 36(1)(v) of the IT Act, 1962 ?
High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Textool Co. Ltd. Section 36(1)(v) V.S. Sirpurkar & K. Raviraja Pandian, JJ. Tax Case
Sec. 260A, Sec. 36(1)(v), Section 260, Section 36, Section 43, Section 43B
Punjab & Haryana H.C : It declared an income of Rs. 1,16,99,320. The assessee had submitted a scheme of group gratuity to the CIT, Patiala.
High Court Of Punjab & Haryana CIT vs. Hindustan Wire Products Ltd. Sections 36(1)(v), 43B, 260A Asst. Year 1992-93 Jawahar
Sec. 28(i), Sec. 36(1)(v), Sec. 37(1), Sec. 40A(7), Section 256, Section 28, Section 36, Section 40
Allahabad H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee was entitled for deduction of Rs. 79,300 on account of contribution to the employees’ gratuity fund even though the gratuity fund was not approved by the CIT as required under the IT Act, 1961 for the asst. yr. 1974-75 ?
High Court Of Allahabad CIT vs. Laxmi Sugar & Oil Mills Ltd. Sections 28(i), 36(1)(v), 37(1), 40(a)(iv), 40A(7), 256 Asst.
Sec. 36(1)(v), Section 36, Section 37
Allahabad H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in allowing deduction of Rs. 1,50,729 being gratuity liability, though the amount was not settled under an irrevocable trust ?
High Court Of Allahabad CIT vs. Saran Engineering Co. Ltd. Sections 36(1)(v), 37 Asst. Year1972-73 Jeevan Reddy. C.J., & S.
