Case Law Details
CIT Vs Abad Exim (P) Ltd. (Kerala High Court)
The question remaining is with respect to the deduction, insofar as the contribution made to the Fishermen’s Welfare Fund. The Fund itself was declared unconstitutional by a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in AIR 2002 SC 973 [Koluthara Exports Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Others. We find that the Honourable Supreme Court while declaring the Fund to be unconstitutional also directed that the amount of contributions already paid will not be liable to be refunded to the contributors. In such circumstances, there is no question of a refund to the assessee and as found by the Tribunal, when the contributions were made, there was a valid fund created. The contribution so made to the Fishermen’s Welfare Fund Board having not been refunded as specifically interdicted by the Honourable Supreme Court, the same would also be employed for the welfare of the fishermen. We, hence, answer the said question of law against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT
The three appeals by the Revenue arise from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowing the assessee’s appeals for the assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04. The question arising in all the years is as to the eligibility under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short). We re-frame the questions of law as below:
“1. Whether the assessee carrying on processing of sea food would be entitled to claim deduction under Section 10A for reason of the substitution to the Section made by Finance Act, 2000; specifically deleting the proviso which permitted processing also to be considered as an activity eligible under Section 10A?
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
