Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.28 seconds)Section 37 in The Payment Of Bonus Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Payment Of Bonus Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Payment Of Bonus Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
The Payment Of Bonus Act, 1965
P.K. Mohammed Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 2 January, 1986
17. We are also in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Kerala High Court in P K Mohammed Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT , that the setting apart of this amount under section 15 of the Bonus Act is only a provision to satisfy an unascertained liability in future and there is no diversion of the fund at source by overriding title.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay vs M/S. Walchand & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., Bombay on 17 March, 1967
The ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Walchand and Co. P. Ltd., , referred to by the Gauhati High Court, with utmost respect, has no bearing on the question before us. The test of commercial expediency could arise only when the amount set apart could be treated as an expenditure and this test has relevancy only to the second ingredient of section 37 already referred to by us above.