Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
Acts
  • section 36(1)(v) of the Income-tax Act.
  • section 36(1)(v)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
Acts
  • section 36(1)(v) of the Income-tax Act.
  • section 36(1)(v)
Smart Summary

Judgment Summary — V.S. Sirpurkar, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns a reference on whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in allowing a deduction of Rs. 55,84,754 under section 36(1)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for payments made by the assessee-company directly to the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) towards a group gratuity fund.

Relevant facts found by the authorities and recorded in the opinion:

  • The Textool Company Employees Group Gratuity Fund was an approved gratuity fund created for the exclusive benefit of the company's employees and formed as an irrevocable trust.
  • The assessee-company made payments amounting to Rs. 55,84,754 directly to the LIC, rather than contributing the sum to the approved gratuity fund and having the fund pay LIC.
  • LIC accepted the payment on behalf of the Group Gratuity Life Assurance Scheme and the master policy produced showed that the initial contribution and premium were credited to the Group Gratuity Life Assurance Scheme for the benefit of the assessee-company's group gratuity fund, with the fund shown as the payee under the policy.
  • In subsequent years the company contributed funds to the approved gratuity fund, and the trustees made payments to the LIC under the master policy; only the initial payment and the first annual premium had been made directly by the company.
  • The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) concluded that the payments were towards the approved fund and were covered by section 36(1)(v); the Appellate Tribunal endorsed that conclusion.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in allowing a deduction of Rs. 55,84,754 for payment made by the assessee-company directly to the LIC towards the group gratuity fund under section 36(1)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bangalore v. J.H. Gotla, Yadagiri, [1985] 156 ITR 323 Support for the proposition that payments made to LIC on behalf of an approved gratuity fund can qualify for deduction under section 36(1)(v) of the Income-tax Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on this Supreme Court judgment in concluding that the assessee was entitled to credit for the amount; the Tribunal endorsed that view and the court agreed with their reliance on this authority.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeded from the factual findings recorded by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and endorsed by the Tribunal. Key elements of the court's reasoning, as reflected in the opinion, are:

  1. Characterisation of the payment: The facts established that the Textool Company Employees Group Gratuity Fund was an approved gratuity fund and an irrevocable trust for the exclusive benefit of the employees, and that the LIC accepted the payment as on behalf of the Group Gratuity Life Assurance Scheme for that fund.
  2. Documentary confirmation: The original master policy produced before the authority showed the fund as the payee and recorded that the initial contribution and premium were credited to the Group Gratuity Life Assurance Scheme for the benefit of the fund.
  3. Form versus substance: The Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that denying the deduction solely because the company made the initial payment directly to LIC would be to give violence to the language of section 36(1)(v) and to lose sight of the legislative intent; the court accepted this view.
  4. Absence of an alternative link: The Commissioner (Appeals) found, and the court accepted, that the contribution could not be linked to any other fund or scheme; the Assessing Officer did not dispute that the contribution was towards the approved gratuity fund.
  5. Precedential support: The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bangalore v. J.H. Gotla, Yadagiri ([1985] 156 ITR 323) to support allowing the deduction; the court found this reliance correct.
  6. Conclusion from combined findings: Given the factual finding that the payments were only towards the group gratuity fund and the authoritative support cited, the deduction under section 36(1)(v) was properly allowed despite the technical point that the payments were made directly to LIC.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The reference is answered in favour of the assessee. The court concluded that the Appellate Tribunal was right in allowing the deduction of Rs. 55,84,754 being the payment made by the assessee-company directly to the LIC towards the group gratuity fund under section 36(1)(v) of the Income-tax Act.

Core Ruling: The Tribunal was right — the deduction of Rs. 55,84,754 is allowed under section 36(1)(v).

Implications: The immediate effect is that the assessee receives credit for the sum of Rs. 55,84,754 as a deduction under section 36(1)(v). The opinion does not set out broader consequences beyond the disposition in favour of the assessee; it answers the reference posed and endorses the approach of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal in applying the cited Supreme Court authority to the facts found.

    Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Textool Co. Ltd.

    V.S Sirpurkar, J.:— The question referred to us is as follows:

    “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in allowing the deduction of Rs. 55,84,754 being the payment made by the assessee-company directly to the LIC towards group gratuity fund under section 36(1)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?”

    2. It seems that the assessee-company had made this payment to the Life Insurance Corporation of India (in short “LIC”) as the said sum was insured by the LIC. There is no denial that the Textool Company Employees Group Gratuity Fund is a duly approved gratuity fund created for the exclusive benefit of the employees of the said company and that it is also an irrevocable trust. It also could not be denied that the payments were made by the assessee-company directly to the LIC instead of a contribution towards the approved gratuity fund.

    3. However, the LIC had accepted the payment as on behalf of the Group Gratuity Life Assurance Scheme which was meant for the exclusive benefit of the employees under the policy issued by the LIC. Even the original master policy was produced before the authority and after going through the said policy, the authority had recorded its suggestion that the initial contribution of Rs. 50 lakhs as also the premium of Rs. 5,57,943 was paid on behalf of the assessee and was credited to the Group Gratuity Life Assurance Scheme on behalf of the assessee-company's group gratuity fund only.

    4. This is what the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has recorded in his order.

    “In other words, the insurance policy had been taken in the name of the approved gratuity fund only and this fund is also shown as the payee in the policy. It is also confirmed by the appellant-company in its letter dated November 20, 1985, addressed to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner that in the subsequent assessment years, the company had contributed funds to the employees group gratuity fund and the trustees in turn had made payment to the LIC in respect of the Textool Co. Ltd. Employees Group Gratuity Assurance Scheme under the master policy No. GGI 42365. Only the initial payment and first annual premium had been made directly by the appellant-company to the LIC towards the said policy.”

    5. From this, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) came to the conclusion that this payment was well covered within the language of section 36(1)(v) and to hold that merely because the payment was made directly to the LIC, the section was violated would be making violence to the language of the section and in the process losing the real intent on the part of the Legis- lature. Ultimately, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has specifically recorded as follows:

    “Even the Assessing Officer does not appear to deny that the contribution in the instant case amounting to Rs. 55,84,754 is positively towards the approved gratuity fund. On the facts the contribution cannot be linked to any other fund or scheme. Even the LIC has received the payment by way of premium for the policy issued under its Group Life Assurance Scheme for the benefit of the employees of the Textool Company Ltd.”

    6. On these findings, ultimately, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bangalore v. J.H Gotla, Yadagiri., [1985] 156 ITR 323 came to the conclusion that the credit had to be given to the assessee for the aforementioned amount. The Appellate Tribunal also went on to endorse this view.

    7. In our opinion, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have correctly held that merely because the payments were made directly to the LIC, the company could not be denied the benefit under section 36(1)(v) and the amount had to be credited in favour of the assessee. Both the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have correctly read the law and have correctly relied upon the aforementioned Supreme Court judgment. In our opinion, since the finding of fact is that all the payments made were only towards the group gratuity fund, there would be no question of finding otherwise. Therefore, it will have to be answered that the Tribunal was right in allowing the deduction of Rs. 55,84,754 being the payment made by the assessee-company directly to the LIC towards the group gratuity fund under section 36(1)(v) of the Income-tax Act. The reference is answered accordingly in favour of the assessee.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Textool Co. Ltd.
    (Feb 4, 2002)