Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (0.56 seconds)
Documents citing Hukam Chand Jute Mills Ltd vs Second Industrial Tribunal, West ... on 11 April, 1979

Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... vs Kicha Sugar Co. Ltd. on 8 February, 1996

7. We have given our careful consideration to the rival submissions. The case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee in the case of Hukumchand Jute Mills Ltd. v. Second Industrial Tribunal, AIR 1979 SC 876, has referred to the customary bonus in excess of the bonus admissible under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. From the facts noted earlier, it is clear that the payment in question was not customary bonus but it was bonus as such as is clear from the decision of the board of directors who in order to avoid legal complications termed it as 'ex gratia'. It is undoubtedly bonus liability which was governed by the provisions of Section 56(1)(ii). The ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court, in our opinion, is therefore, not applicable to the facts of the case before us. No interference with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on this account is, therefore, called for."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 54 - Cited by 44 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Raza Textiles Ltd. on 9 May, 2005

A similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Court in the case of Hukum Chand Jute Mills Ltd. v. Second Industrial Tribunal West Bengal and Ors. (1979) 3 S.C.R. 644. It was held in this case that the Bonus Act, 1965 does not deal with customary bonus and is confined to profit based on productivity based bonus. The provisions of that Act have no say on customary bonus and cannot, therefore, be inconsistent therewith. Consequently statutory bonus and customary bonus operate in two fields and do not clash with each other.
Allahabad High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 5 - R Kumar - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs D. Mohamed Ismail on 2 March, 1996

In Hukumchand Jute Mills Ltd. vs. Second Industrial Tribunal (supra), wherein the Supreme Court held that the customary or contractual bonus were excluded from the provisions of the Act and it was laid down "The Bonus Act (1965) was a complete Code, but was confined to profit-oriented bonus only. Other kinds of bonus have flourished in Indian Industrial Law and have been left uncovered by the Bonus Act. The legislative universe spanned by the said statute cannot, therefore, affect the rights and obligations belonging to a different world or claims and conditions. In the abovesaid decision, it was further held that s. 17 of the Bonus Act in express terms refers to Pooja bonus and other customary bonus as available for deduction from the bonus payable under the Act, thus making a clear distinction between the bonus payable under the Act and Puja bonus or other customary bonus. So long as this section remains without amendment, the inference is clear that the categories covered by the Act, as amended, did not deal with customary bonus."
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Inspecting Assistant Commissioner vs Jawahar Mills Ltd. on 31 December, 1983

In fact, this distinction between the bonus payable under the Payment of Bonus Act and other bonus which is not a profit-sharing bonus was brought out by the Supreme Court in the case of Hukumchand Jute Mills Ltd. v. Second Industrial Tribunal AIR 1979 SC 876 where it was held that it was clear that the Act did not deal with the bonus other than profit-sharing bonus. It, therefore, becomes necessary for us to consider whether the amount calculated at 12 per cent, paid over and above the bonus payable under the Payment of Bonus Act, was in the nature of profit-sharing bonus or other bonus and whether it is deductible under Section 36(1)(ii) or under Section 37. Clearly it is not a profit-sharing bonus because the agreement did not envisage that it should be paid as a share of profit. This is underlined by the admitted fact that the additional amount was not to be taken into account for the purpose of set on and set off of the bonus from the available surplus of the other accounting years. Clearly, therefore, this additional amount was not a profit-sharing bonus at all. The question is whether it is a bonus otherwise allowable under Section 36(1)(ii) or an expenditure laid out for the purpose of the business under Section 37.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Madras Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Income-Tax Officer vs Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. on 30 November, 1984

7. We have given careful consideration to the rival submissions. That the present payment of bonus is in terms of the Payment of Bonus Act, is not in doubt. In fact, the memorandum of settlement makes this position abundantly clear. This being so, the question of making reference to the decision of Hukumchand Jute Mills Ltd.'s case (supra) does not arise, for it is nobody's case in the present appeal that the payment in question is not of bonus out of profits but of customary bonus. The Commissioner (Appeals) had, therefore, clearly erred in referring to the aforesaid decision and in presuming that the ratio of the said decision would apply to the facts of the present case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Molins Of India Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 30 December, 1983

In the present case, it is not that some provision of law, which was applicable to the given facts, has been omitted from consideration. Whatever was the relevant law applicable to the facts pleaded by the assessee before the ITO was considered by him and by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and on that basis they gave their decision. What the assessee is now attempting to do is to plead an altogether new factual position, contrary to its plea before the authorities below, and is seeking our permission to lead evidence in support of the same. This situation is radically different from what it was before the Tribunal in the case of Hukumchand Jute Mills Ltd. (supra).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Shaw Wallace Gelatines Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 31 July, 1982

The contention of the assessee is that the proviso restricts only that amount of bonus which is paid under the Bonus Act. But if the customary or puja bonus is paid to the workers, the Bonus Act is not applicable and, hence, that amount was allowable to the assessee. The departmental representative, on the other hand, has argued that whatever name may be given, the amount paid by the assessee was bonus and the bonus paid by the assessee should not exceed the bonus payable under the provisions of the Bonus Act. A question arose before the Supreme Court about the nature of bonus payable under the Bonus Act, in Hukumchand Jute Mills Ltd. v. Second Industrial Tribunal [1980] 3 Taxman 43 (SC). The workers of Hukumchand Jute Mills Ltd. damanded customary bonus. The claim was denied under the Bonus Act. The conflict led to a reference by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal. The matter was decided in favour of the workers but, however, the management took the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered the meaning of 'bonus' under the Bonus Act and came to the conclusion that the 'bonus' referred to in the Bonus Act, related to the payment of bonus which was based on the profit or production. It did not include puja or customary bonus.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 12 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Kerala Agro Industries Corporation on 4 December, 1989

This position was reiterated in Hukumchand Jute Mills Ltd. v. Second Industrial Tribunal, AIR 1979 SC 876. In fact, this aspect of the matter is discernible from the second proviso to Section 36(1)(ii) of the Act. Certainly, the first proviso to Section 36(1)(ii) will not be attracted to the case of payment of customary or contractual bonus.
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 12 - K S Paripoornan - Full Document
1   2 3 Next