9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Income-tax Tribunal dt. 18th Dec., 2000, vide Annexure 3 to the appeal. The main point pressed by the learned counsel for the Department is that the amount of ₹ 9,82,426 was wrongly allowed by the Tribunal under s. 36(i) and (ii) or s. 37(1) of the IT Act. This question has been discussed in para 5 of the impugned order of the Tribunal. It appears that in the year 1978 the workers of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... workmen is that we have to start from the profit of the previous year as mentioned in the P&L a/c of the company. We have then to add certain amounts and subtract certain amounts which are mentioned in the Payment of Bonus Act. We then come to the available surplus. Sixty per cent of the available surplus is the allocable surplus payable to the workmen. The idea of giving bonus is that since the w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... involved. The Calcutta High Court held that the payment made above the amount due under the Act to keep industrial peace was allowable as a business expenditure. We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid decision of Calcutta High Court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant then submits that the Tribunal was not justified in deleting addition of 18 per cent under s. 40A(12) of the IT Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribution to the same. The learned Tribunal has relied upon the decision in Dy. CIT vs. Chloride Industries Ltd. (2001) 70 TTJ (Cal) 407: (2000) 111 Taxman 81(Cal)(Mag) and Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2000) 111 Taxman 186(Del)(Mag). We respectfully agree with the aforesaid decisions. 6. It may be mentioned here that even if the amount is not legally due yet it can be allowed as a busines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
