9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of additional bonus payment under Section 36(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Allowability of the additional bonus payment under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Additional Bonus Payment under Section 36(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The main issue was whether the additional payment of Rs. 74,206 made by the assessee to its employees could be allowed as a deduction under Section 36(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed this payment, stating that it exceeded the limit prescribed under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, and similar payments had been disallowed in previous years. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this disallowance, reasoning that the additional payment, although termed as 'ex gratia,' was essentially a bonus and thus not allowable under Section 36(1)(ii). The assessee argued that the additional payment was not covered by the restriction in Section 36(1)(ii) as it was a customary or ex gratia payment made to maintain industrial peace, and not a statutory bonus under the Bonus Act. The counsel for the assessee cited the Supreme Court decision in AIR 1979 SC 876, which distinguished between statutory bonus and customary or ex gratia payments. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court had clarified that the 'bonus' referred to in the Bonus Act related to profit-based or production-based bonuses and did not include customary or ex gratia payments. The Tribunal concluded that the additional payment of Rs. 74,206 was not restricted by the first proviso to Section 36(1)(ii) as it was a customary payment made to maintain industrial peace and was thus allowable as a deduction. 2. Allowability of the Additional Bonus Payment under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The alternative argument presented by the assessee was that even if the additional payment was not allowable under Section 36(1)(ii), it should be allowed under Section 37, which permits deductions for expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business. The assessee contended that the payment was made to maintain industrial peace and was a matter of commercial expediency. The departmental representative argued that specific provisions (Section 36(1)(ii)) should override general provisions (Section 37), and since the payment was disallowed under Section 36(1)(ii), it could not be allowed under Section 37. However, the Tribunal found that Section 36(1)(ii) specifically dealt with statutory bonuses under the Bonus Act and did not preclude other types of payments from being considered under Section 37. The Tribunal emphasized that the additional payment was made to avoid labour unrest and ensure the smooth operation of the business, which was a commercially expedient decision. Therefore, the payment was considered to be incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business and was allowable under Section 37. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the additional payment of Rs. 74,206 made by the assessee to its employees was allowable as a deduction either under Section 36(1)(ii) as a customary payment or under Section 37 as a business expenditure. The judgment emphasized the importance of maintaining industrial peace and the commercial expediency of such payments.
|
