9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the interpretation of ex gratia payments made by the assessee to its employees, specifically regarding whether these payments represent bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, and whether they are allowable as deductions under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Issue 1 - Ex Gratia Payment as Bonus: The Income-tax Officer disallowed ex gratia payment claimed by the assessee, stating it was in excess of the bonus allowable under the relevant Bonus Act due to incurred losses. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) later deleted these additions. The Tribunal held that the ex gratia payments were not bonus but were allowable under section 37. The court analyzed the settlement agreements and concluded that the payments were additional wages or emoluments, not profit-sharing bonuses, and were made ex gratia or as part of settlements between the industry and workers, thus affirming the Tribunal's decision. Issue 2 - Applicability of Payment of Bonus Act: The Tribunal determined that section 34 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, did not apply to the memoranda of settlement dated November 3, 1980, and September 24, 1983, under which ex gratia payments were made. The court examined the terms of these settlements, emphasizing that the payments were made in addition to statutory bonuses for the sake of industrial peace and harmony, and were not profit-sharing bonuses. This led to the conclusion that the payments were ex gratia and allowable under section 37. Issue 3 - Correctness of Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal's decision that the payments made by the assessee to its workmen were ex gratia and not bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, was challenged by the Revenue. However, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision, citing a similar case where ex gratia payments were allowed as deductions under section 37 for maintaining industrial peace. The court affirmed that the payments in question were additional wages or emoluments, distinct from statutory bonuses, and therefore, were correctly treated as ex gratia payments. The High Court of Calcutta, comprising Judges Ajit Kumar Sengupta and Shyamal Kumar Sen, answered all the questions in the reference in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee, with no order as to costs.
|
