Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.29 seconds)The Payment Of Bonus Act, 1965
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Tarun Commercial Mills Co. Ltd. on 1 April, 1976
CIT vs. Tarun Commercial Mills Ltd. (supra) the special provisions of s. 40(c) alone will be applicable in the case of directors of the company and not that of s. 40A(5) and thus no force in this ground.
Section 37 in The Payment Of Bonus Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
Shahzada Nand & Sons vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala on 12 April, 1977
4. As against it, the learned counsel for the assessee supported the view of the learned CIT(A) and took us to the copy of note given by assessee before CIT(A) regarding ex gratia payment. It has been mentioned that the learned AO has wrongly treated the payment as ex gratia payment while as a matter of fact the amount was paid to its supervisory staff and senior employees in the nature of incentive for hard and devoted work done by them during the year and at the most the same can be termed as establishment/salary type nature and should be allowed as a whole. He also pointed out the details of ex gratia payment made to employees which were appearing at pp. 4 and 5 of the paper book and further pointed out that payment of these amounts have not been disputed by the AO. He further placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shahzada Nand & Sons vs. CIT (1977) 108 ITR 358 (SC) in which commission paid to employees by the assessee in token of extra services rendered by them was found reasonable and allowable expenses. The learned counsel pointed out that the Tribunal Ahmedabad Benches have been following this analogy laid down by the apex Court and the nature of payment involved in this ground is alike the amount and its nature which was before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the CIT(A) has rightly allowed the claim of assessee.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Income-Tax Officer vs Mahesh Trading Co. on 26 February, 1982
5. We have considered the rival submissions. The facts of the case of Pankajkumar Maheshkumar & Co. (supra) relied by the learned Departmental Representative are quite separate. In that case provisions of Payment of Bonus Act were applicable to the employees and the Tribunal held that amount of Rs. 6,000 paid to employee as bonus was unreasonable as it was 66% of his salary which was Rs. 9,000 per annum. The facts before us are quite separate. Here the amount has been paid to those persons to whom Payment of Bonus Act are not applicable and even (sic - if) applicable, the plea of Department is not that amount was in any way unreasonable. The amount actually paid to the employees was in the nature of incentive for work done for the assessee-company and thus rightly held as allowable. No interference is called for and this ground is rejected.
1