SUDHIR AGARWAL,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Pradeep Agrawal, Advocate, for appellant and Sri Manish Misra, Advocate, for respondent-Revenue.
(2.) These two appeals have arisen from common judgment and order dated 21.08.2014 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") and has been filed under section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1961") by Assessee. The details of year of assessment, number of appeal before Tribunal in the appeals before this Court are as under: JUDGEMENT_247_LAWS(ALL)2_2017_1.html
(3.) I.T.A. No. 1 of 2015 has raised following seven substantial questions of law: (i) Whether Tribunal was justified in adding to the income, the grant from the Government of India out of National Renewable Fund for implementation of Voluntary Retirement Scheme amounting to Rs. 1,14,89,040/-. (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified on facts or in law in allowing â ...•th of VRS payment of Rs. 1,35,47,324/- i.e. Rs. 27,09,465/- in view of the provision of Section 35DDA of Act, 1961 as against the amount of Rs. 4,11,657 as determined by Appellant and on the other hand the VRS expenses debited by the Appellant in the profit and loss account at Rs. 1,14,89,040/- were added back to the income of Appellant. (iii) Whether Tribunal was justified in overlooking the provisions of Section 43B relating to disallowance of Rs. 1,40,57,860/- on account of payment of gratuity paid under the scheme of LIC but disallowed the said amount by invoking the provisions of Section 40A(7) of the Act, 1961. (iv) Whether Tribunal was justified in considering the fact that premium paid by Appellant to LIC was under a scheme known as 'Group Gratuity Scheme' formed by LIC and the insurance premium paid under the said scheme is treated as a deductible business expense of the Company. (v) Whether Tribunal was justified in relaying upon a decision of this Court which was decided on ex-parte basis and the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Textools Co. Ltd. was considered. (vi) Whether the Tribunal was justified in considering the fact that a bare reading of Section 36(1)(v) of the Act, 1961 clearly shows that real intention behind the provision is that employer should have any control over the funds of irrevocable trust crated exclusively for the benefit of the employees and thus the condition is satisfied and the deduction is allowable. (vii) Whether Tribunal was justified in considering the decision of Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Textools Col. Ltd. (2013) 216 Taxman 327 wherein Apex Court has considered its earlier decision in the case of Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax , wherein it has been held that the condition of Section 36(1)(v) of Act, 1961 stands satisfied if the employer does have any control over the funds of the irrevocable trust created exclusively for the benefit of employees.;