The Calcutta High Court has upheld the deletion of a massive ₹648.84 crore income-tax disallowance relating to contributions made by the Syama Prasad Mookherjee Port, Kolkata to its approved Superannuation Fund.
The Division Bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Justice Uday Kumar held that the statutory ceiling prescribed under Rule 87 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 could not be mechanically applied to extraordinary contributions made to bridge an actuarial deficit in an approved fund.
The assessee, formerly known as the Kolkata Port Trust, is an Artificial Juridical Person and has been providing essential port services since its establishment in 1870.
Buy Now: 80+ Income Tax Judgments | E-Magazine July 2026
For the relevant assessment year, the assessee filed its return declaring total income of approximately ₹212.86 crore. Following scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Sections 143(3) read with 144C of the Income-tax Act and determined the assessed income at approximately ₹861.71 crore.
A substantial component of the assessment was a disallowance of ₹648,84,64,174 relating to the assessee’s contribution to its approved Superannuation Fund. The Assessing Officer treated the contribution as being in excess of the permissible limit under Rule 87 of the Income-tax Rules.
The assessee challenged the disallowance before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre. The CIT(A) deleted the entire addition, relying upon judicial precedents concerning contributions to superannuation and other employee benefit funds.
The Revenue then approached the ITAT. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)’s decision and deleted the addition. It observed that the payments were made to bridge the gap between actual contributions and the amounts required on the basis of actuarial valuations. According to the ITAT, these were neither initial contributions nor ordinary annual contributions to which the relevant ceilings would ordinarily apply.
Before the High Court, the Revenue contended that the ITAT had wrongly treated the contribution as an exceptional or one-time payment.
The Department argued that the assessee had been making payments to meet funding shortfalls over several years. Therefore, according to the Revenue, the contribution could not be characterised as an extraordinary payment merely because it was intended to address an actuarial deficit.
The Revenue further argued that the ITAT had incorrectly relied upon the Calcutta High Court’s earlier ruling in PCIT v. Exide Industries Ltd., contending that the factual circumstances in the present case were materially different because the funding of shortfalls had become a recurring practice.
The Revenue accordingly questioned whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the ₹648.84 crore disallowance and whether its order could be regarded as legally sustainable.
The Court noted that the Assessing Officer had disallowed the contribution on the ground that it exceeded the 27% ceiling under Rule 87. The assessee, however, had explained that the payment was necessitated by a severe deficit revealed through actuarial valuation of the Superannuation Fund.
According to the assessee’s explanation, the fund had remained underfunded in earlier years because of persistent procedural and funding constraints. The payment made during the relevant financial year was therefore an extraordinary ad hoc interim contribution intended to address both current and accumulated deficiencies and bring the fund’s assets in line with its actual actuarial liabilities.
The CIT(A) and ITAT accepted this explanation and found that the payments were specifically designed to bridge the actuarial funding gap. The High Court found no error in that approach.
A significant aspect of the ruling is the Court’s rejection of the argument that repeated funding of deficits automatically changes the legal character of such payments.
The Court held that the legal nature of a contribution is determined by its purpose, namely whether it is intended to remedy an actuarial deficit, and not simply by the number of years over which the deficit has taken to resolve.
Thus, even where an employer has had to make similar deficit-funding payments over multiple years, that fact by itself does not transform an actuarially backed, gap-filling contribution into an ordinary annual contribution subject to the Rule 87 ceiling.
The Court reasoned that a persistent deficit arising from past funding constraints cannot convert ad hoc payments intended to restore the financial position of an approved fund into ordinary annual contributions.
The Court placed particular emphasis on the consequences of applying the Rule 87 ceiling to contributions required to address an actuarial deficit.
It held that imposing the ceiling on necessary, actuarially backed funding of an approved fund could compromise the solvency of the fund. Such an approach, according to the Court, would also be inconsistent with the statutory scheme governing deductions in respect of contributions to approved funds under Section 36(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act.
The High Court therefore accepted the ITAT’s reliance on the earlier decision in Exide Industries Ltd., under which the statutory ceiling under Rule 87 does not apply to extraordinary contributions made for the purpose of addressing actuarial deficits.
The ITAT had relied upon earlier decisions of the Calcutta High Court, including PCIT v. Exide Industries Ltd. (2023)and Eastern Equipment & Sales Ltd. / CIT v. Eastern Equipment & Sales Limited, reported at 71 taxmann.com 226 (Cal).
The Revenue attempted to distinguish the present case from Exide Industries on the ground that the funding of shortfalls here had occurred regularly over several years.
The High Court, however, found that this distinction did not undermine the Tribunal’s conclusion. The Court held that the underlying purpose of the payment remained the correction of an actuarial deficit, and its recurring nature did not by itself change its character.
The Court therefore concluded that the ITAT had committed no error in upholding the deletion of the disallowance.
The department had also questioned whether the ITAT’s order was perverse, arbitrary or contrary to the Income-tax Act.
The High Court rejected this contention as well. It observed that the Tribunal had reached its conclusions by relying upon existing jurisdictional High Court precedents. Even if the application of those precedents to the specific factual circumstances could be debated, the Tribunal’s reliance on established judicial interpretations meant that its order was a reasoned legal decision rather than an arbitrary or perverse one.
The Court accordingly answered the third substantial question of law against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
Answering the substantial questions of law, the High Court held that the ITAT had correctly upheld the CIT(A)’s decision to delete the ₹648,84,64,174 disallowance.
The first two substantial questions were answered in the negative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The third question concerning the alleged perversity or arbitrariness of the ITAT’s order was also answered against the Revenue.
The Court consequently upheld the Tribunal’s findings concerning the Superannuation Fund contributions and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal. There was no order as to costs.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
