1984 (5) TMI 115

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ss of the limit specified in the payment of Bonus Act, 1965. For the asst. yr. 1980-81 (year ending 31st March, 1980), the assessee paid bonus of Rs. 29,532 under the Payment of Bonus Act to its 57 employees. It also paid customary bonus of Rs. 11,220 to its employees for Deepawali. The ITO aggregated the two sums at Rs. 40,852 and disallowed bonus in respect of 29 employees on the ground that it .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , should be sustained, Sri. Sahasranamam, Karta of the bigger HUF (including minor Sankaran) is a partner in the assessee firm. The firm borrowed money from Sahasranamam, Karta of the smaller HUF (excluding the minor Sankaran) and paid interest of Rs. 45,000. The ITO disallowed the above interest payment under s. 40 (b), relying on the Allahabad High Court decision in (1979) 10 CTR (All) 301 : (19 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and had invested their individual money in the firm. This decision is distinguishable on fact, since in the present case the interest in question has not been paid to the individual partner but to the smaller HUF. A similar issue was considered by the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sajjan Raj Divan Chand (1981) 21 CTR (Guj) 26 : (1980) 126 ITR 654 (Guj). The facts in this case were that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X