9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal - Hence, the Tax Case Appeal stands dismissed. - 695 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 18-7-2011 - MRS.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN, JJ. For Appellant: Mr.J.Naresh Kumar For Respondent: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan JUDGMENT M.JAICHANDREN, J. The Tax Case Appeal relates to the assessment year 1990-1991. 2. The assessee is a closely held company, which had filed a return, for the assessment year 1990-1991, on 24.12.1990, declaring a total income of Rs.36,63,900/- and a sum of Rs.32,72,274/-, as per the computation, under Section 115J of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The assessee had made a provision for labour welfare expenses, amounting to Rs.9,33,430/-. The said amount was disallowed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ves was paid to the workers, as a part of their salary or wages, based on their performance, in lieu of the annual increments in salary. The actual payment made in the subsequent year was more than what had been provided for. The provisions of Section 43B(c) would not apply to the disputed payments. Accordingly, the disallowance of Rs.9,33,430/- was deleted. 6. Aggrieved by the said order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), dated 27.6.1991, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench. The only ground raised by the Department, in the said appeal, was that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in allowing a sum of Rs.9,33,430/-, as a provision for labour welfare expenses, when a su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and on a perusal of the records available, it is found that, the Department had filed an appeal before the Tribunal, on an identical issue, for the assessment year 1988-1989, in respect of the same assessee. The said issue was decided in favour of the assessee. It is noted that a similar provision had also made by the assessee, for the assessment year 1990-1991. It is also found that what was being paid to the workers was not bonus or any other payment in the guise of bonus. On the other hand incentives was paid, based on the performance of the workers, in lieu of the increase in salary and as part of the salary or wages. 10. The facts of the case, thus show that the provisions made was not tax payment of bonus but payment, as part of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
