9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer to allow the discount on sales amounting to Rs. 2,02,754 holding the same not to be caught by the mischief of section 37(3A)?" - in the absence of any infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal question No. 1 is required to be answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue - In relation to the second question, it cannot be stated that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... production bonus amounting to Rs. 7,32,449 apart from the staff bonus which was allowed? (2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the discount on sales amounting to Rs. 2,02,754 holding the same not to be caught by the mischief of section 37(3A)?" The assessment year is 1985-86 and the relevant accounting period is the year end ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecorded that (i) the payment was in pursuance of the agreement with the employees, (ii) the payment was for achieving production over and above the normally expected production, (iii) the production bonus had been quantified with reference to the extra production achieved, (iv) the production bonus was treated as part and parcel of regular wages for the purpose of employees State insurance corpora ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... airly accepted by Mr. Bhatt that the discount was in the nature of reduction in the sale price. It was also pointed out that the legal position as regards the nature of items mentioned in section 37(3A) read with section 37(3B)(i) of the Act has already been enunciated by this court in the judgment rendered in the case of CIT v. Zippers India [2006] 284 ITR 142 (Guj)-I.T.R. No. 141 of 1994 decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
