Telangana High Court
ITTA/727/2014 of The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Hyderabad Vs A.P.Housing Board, on 31 December 2014
JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.T.A. NO.727 OF 2014 DATED:31.12.2014 Between: The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV Hyderabad
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Issues
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABADFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRAPRADESH
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.T.A. NO.727 OF 2014
DATED:31.12.2014
Between:
The Commissioner of Income Tax-IVHyderabad … Appellant
And
A.P. Housing BoardGruhakalpaNampallyHyderabad … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A. NO.727 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted against thejudgment and order of the learned Tribunal dt.31.5.2013 on thefollowing substantial question of law:
“Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, theHon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in deleting thedisallowance of payment of pension to retired employees which is anexpenditure neither allowable under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961nor under Section 36(1)(iv) of the said Act as the same is not towardscontribution to a recognized superannuation fund?”
We have heard Mr. J.V. Prasad, learned counsel for theappellant – Revenue, and gone through the impugned judgment andorder of the learned Tribunal.
We find that the issue is whether the amount of pension payablecan be treated to be a superannuation fund within the meaning ofclause (iv) of sub-section (1) of Section 36 of the Income Tax Act,1961, under the heading ‘other deduction’ or not?
Mr. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant, says that thepension paid is not out of the superannuation fund.
We are not able to agree with the submission, as the learnedTribunal on fact found that the lower authorities have not disputed thatthe pension amount has been paid. It is also a fact that pension ispayable as per the service conditions. Obviously the pension is paid from source of a fund. Naturally, the benefit given under the aforesaidSection 36 of the Act is liable for deduction as, the superannuationfund, in our view, has a wider meaning, which includes pension fundalso, for pension is paid on superannuation and not before.
Accordingly, there is no merit in the eye of law to admit thisappeal and it is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as tocosts.
________________________
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ
_______________________
SANJAY KUMAR, J
31.12.2014
bnr