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

1991 (12) TMI 139

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s to urge that the CIT erred in his direction and conclusion that the first proviso to section 36(1)(ii) is applicable to the assessee company and disregarding the instructions of the CBDT contained in Circular No. 206 dated 9-8-1986. Therefore, it was prayed that the order of the CIT should be vacated and the order of the IT be restored. 2. The assessee is a Resident company and the assessment year involved is 1985-86 for which the accounting year ended on 31-12-1984. The original assessment order was passed on 1-12-1986. This order was considered to be erroneous and prejudicial in terms of section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the CIT for the reason that excess bonus of Rs. 14,918 was not disallowed. Therefore, after issuing a show .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ained in Circular No. 287 dated 4-12-1980. Accordingly he modified the order of the ITO with a direction to recompute the income by disallowing the excess payment of Rs. 14,918. 3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the bonus has been paid in this case only at the rate of 8.33% as per allocable surplus including the Directors of the company who are employees. Out of 15 employees considered by the CIT six employees, viz. S/Shri V.S. Mulay, P.K. Bhagwat, Y.K. Joshi, U.Y. Joshi, Shrikant V. Godbole and Sadanand V. Godbole were getting salary in excess of Rs. 1,600 p.m. and, therefore, they are not the employees governed by the Payment of Bonus Act as per the definition contained in section 2(13) of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hem requires to be considered only under the second proviso to section 36(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as clarified by the CBDT in Circular No. 206 dated 9-8-1976. The Board clarified that the persons drawing salary or wage exceeding Rs. 1,600 p.m. and who are employed in a factory or establishment to which the provisions of Payment of Bonus Act apply, are not covered by the provisions of that Act relating to compulsory payment of bonus. In view thereof, the restrictions laid down in the aforesaid first proviso regarding the deduction in respect of bonus paid to employees covered by the Payment of Bonus Act will not apply in relation to such persons. The bonus paid to such persons will therefore, fall under the second proviso to secti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Payment of Bonus Act by way of customary bonus and observed that even in respect of excess payment of bonus to employees governed by the first proviso to section 36(1)(ii) the admissibility would be required to be tested by the three conditions specified under the second proviso, viz. (a) pay of the employee and the conditions of service ; (b) the profits of the business or profession for the previous year in question ; and (c) the general practice in similar business or profession. Accordingly the Kerala High Court has also observed that these tests would be applicable for employees who are not governed by the Payment of Bonus Act i.e., to those employees who are in receipt of salary or wages exceeding Rs. 1,600 p.m. 8. The Calcutta Hi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Legislature never intended that the payment of bonus, in whatever name it is called, in excess of the amount of bonus prescribed under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, would not be allowable even if such payment is reasonable and has been made having regard to the commercial and business expediency and to maintain the target of production through sustained industrial peace. 9. Considering the clarification given by the CBDT as well as their Lordships of Kerala and Calcutta High Courts there is no justification for the CIT to invoke jurisdiction under section 263 and to come to the conclusion that the order passed by the ITO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and consequently giving a direction to disallow the excess p .....

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