Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.36 seconds)

Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd vs C.I.T,New Delhi on 5 January, 2011

17. Upon consideration of the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the loyalty rewards do not fall in the same category as bonus and commission as envisaged under section 36(1)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, respectfully following the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sri Ram Ltd.. vs. CIT (supra), we direct the A.O. the allow this expenditure.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 109 - S H Kapadia - Full Document

The Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... vs M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd. on 9 July, 2015

18. Coming to Ground No.8 of the Revenue's appeal which is against the direction of the DRP to reduce the telecommunication charges from both the export turnover as well as total turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction under section 10A of the I.T. Act, we find that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT & another vs. Tata Elxsi (2012) 349 ITR 98 (Karnataka) (HC). We find that the DRP has followed the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal wherein similar decision has been taken. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the final assessment order on this issue passed in accordance with the directions of the DRP. Accordingly, Ground No.8 of the Revenue is rejected.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 144 - Full Document

Shri Ram Piston And Rings Ltd. vs Cit on 17 July, 2007

15. As regards Ground No.5 regarding loyalty rewards, brief facts are that the company had made a provision of Rs.86,25,630 for loyalty rewards payable to 19 its employees. The A.O. proceeded to disallow the same under section 43B of the I.T. Act to an extent of Rs.3,00,538 after considering that Rs.83,25,920 was actually paid on or before the due date of filing the return. It was submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that section 43B read with section 36(1)(ii) refers to any sum paid to an employee as statutory bonus or commission, whereas, loyalty rewards paid by the assessee is to reward his employee who completes certain period of work with the company and therefore, it cannot be equated to bonus or commission referred to in section 36(1)(ii) and therefore, the disallowance of Rs.3,00,538 is to be deleted. Assessee placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of Shri Ram Pistons & Rings Ltd., vs. CIT 307 ITR 363 (Del.)
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1