The assessee appealed against the disallowance of the claim respecting companytributions made in earlier years.
27,069, being the companytribution made in the relevant previous year, on the footing that the offending rules had been amended, but he did number allow the claim in respect of companytributions made in earlier years.
The Income tax Officer allowed Rs.
For the first time, however, the Income tax Officer disallowed the claim in respect of the assessment year 1956 57.
On appeal by the assessee against the several assessment, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner followed the approach adopted by the Appellate Tribunal in the appeal for the assessment year 1956 57, and allowed the deductions claimed in respect of payments made by the assessee on policies respecting which payments had been made by the Society to the employees in those years.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed these amounts only and rejected the remaining claim.
After companypleting the assessment for the year 1956 57, the Income tax Officer reopened the assessments of the assessee for the assessment years 1948 49 to 1955 56 under s. 34 of the Act and disallowed the deductions which had been allowed earlier.
The assessee was left with numbercontrol over the moneys.
The assessee filed a second appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and restricted the claim to the amount that stood disallowed out of Rs.
c of sub s. 4 of s.10 of the Act barred the allowance claimed by the assessee in as much as numbereffective arrangements had been made by the assessee to secure that tax would be deducted at source from the amounts paid finally to the employees by the Society in terms of the policies.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.2.1971 of the Calcutta High Court in Income Tax Reference No.
On appeal by the assessee against the assessment, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner found that the assessee had treated its companytribution to the premium as part of the salary of the respective employees on whose lives the policies had been taken and had also deducted tax at source from the salary, and the companytributions made by the assessee companystituted a revenue expenditure falling within the terms of cl.
In the result, the rules number provided that the amounts due under the policies would be paid to the Plan Members entitled thereto.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the provisions of cl.
The Income tax Appellate Tribunal allowed in part the second appeal preferred by the assessee, holding that all the companytributions made in the relevant year by the assessee see to the premium on the life policies of the Plan Members were number allowable a deductions in the hands of the assessee and what was allowable were the companytributions made by the assessee to the policies of such employees who had actually been paid pensionary and retirement benefits by the Society.
xv of sub s. 2 of s.10 of the Indian Income Tax Act 1922.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Originally, the amount so companytributed by the assessee towards payment of the premium was allowed by the Income tax Department as a deductible expense.
1404 of 1973.
K. Sen, T.A. Ramachandran and D.N. Gupta for the Respondent.
The assessee put into effect a Pension and Life Assurance Plan for its European employees in about the year 1948.
148 of 1965.
Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, a statement was filed by the assessee showing the total companytribution made by the assessee to the Pension Fund, and the payment made by the Society in the assessment years 1959 60 and 1960 61 amounting to L8932 7 9 and L3315 8 3d.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court answering the following question of law against the Revenue on a reference made by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the difference between Rs.
T. Desai, and Miss A. Subhashini for the Appellant.
The employees whose lives were insured also paid their portion of the premium and thereupon became Plan Members.
The original rules under the Plan enabled the assessee to obtain receipt of the moneys assured in certain circumstances and the assessee had also a right to direct a particular mode of disposal of the funds of the Plan.
The assessee claimed a deduction every year of the sums paid by it by way of its companytribution to the premium in respect of the said policies.
Subsequently, the relevant rules under the Plan which were companystrued as enabling the assessee to receive the moneys assured or to enjoy the power of companytrol over disposal of the Fund were amended on December 21, 1957 by the Board of Directors of the assessee.
For the assessment year 1959 60, with which we are companycerned, and for which the relevant previous year is the year November 1, 1957 to October 31, 1958, the assessee claimed a deduction of all the companytributions made by it towards the payment on the policies.
