Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1985 (8) TMI 148

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... allowance in respect of the concern entitled to such extra shift allowance as a whole without restricting it to the number of days each item of plant and machinery actually worked extra shift. 2. It is convenient to dispose of the second objection first. The Department in support of its contention relies on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of South India Visose Ltd vs. CIT (1982) 29 CTR (Mad) 356 : (1982) 135 ITR 206 (Mad). This question has repeatedly come up before the Tribunal in a number of cases and it has been uniformly held that though the Madras High Court decision would support the Department s case and is binding on the Tribunal if the Tribunal were to interpret the relevant rules concerning the grant of extra s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the admissible amount of expenditure on payment of bonus. According to this provision, only bonus as provided under the Payment of Bonus Act is eligible for deduction and the excess has to be disallowed. He draw support for this from the recommendation of the Choksi Committee which, according to him evidence an understanding of the Choksi Committee as restricting the payment of bonus as per the payment of Bonus Act. It is pointed out that in this case the payment claim for deduction is in pursuance of a settlement made in regard to s. 31A of the payment of bonus Act. We referred to this section and contended that the very language of the section authorising the payment of bonus linked with production or productivity shows that it is in lieu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... regarded as a payment otherwise than a payment of bonus under s. 36(1) of the Act so as to entitle it to be claimed as an expenditure or outlay necessitated by statutory compulsion. the ld. Departmental Representative also sought to distinguish the High Court order in the case of Sivanada Mill in TCP No. 228 of 84 dt 12 Dec. 1984 on the ground that it was incentive bonus paid in addition to the regular bonus. Lastly, he contended that the settlement was reached in this case on 23rd Sept., 1978 covering the two years 1977-78 and 1978-79 and therefore the relevant previous year in which the assessee could have claimed the deduction relating to the year 1978-79 is the asst. yr. 1980-81 and not the present asst. yr. 1981-82. The ld. Representa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... id. It is clear to us that while the amount payable under the Payment of Bonus Act. 8 1/3 per cent is allowed against the provisions made in the accounts, any excess payment in pursuance of the agreement of settlement beyond the limit provided under the Payment of Bonus Act on the basis of profits is allowed in the year of actual payment. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the Department s objection that the present year is not the relevant year in which the assessee can claim the deduction. As regards the contention that the payment cannot be said to be in accordance with the Payment of Bonus Act, here also we do not agree with the learned Departmental Representative. Sec. 36(1), cl. (ii) proviso only limits the payment of bonus to th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to come to a fair and amicable settlement. If a settlement is reached then he has got to forward it with the report to the appropriate Government. under sec. 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings or award etc. shall be binding on all the parties to the dispute and sec. 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act providese that any person who commits the breach of any term of any settlement or award which is binding on him under the said Act shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term stated therein or fine or both and for other consequences. If any agreements is not reached between the parties as a result of negotiating, the act provides for reference of the case to the appropriate .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates