9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 998X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not of the type contemplated by the Payment of Bonus Act. It was held that it was an ex gratia payment or some sort of reward given to an employee for the good work done by him and would therefore, fall within the category of expenditure incurred for the purpose of business expediency and for improving the working of the assessee. Therefore, it would not fall within the meaning of section 36(1)(ii) of the Act but would fall within the ambit of section 37 of the Act. - decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.9/Del./2013 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) - - - Dated:- 31-10-2014 - Shri I.C. Sudhir and Shri B.C. Meena, JJ. Assessee By: Shri Ved Jain Smt. Rano Jain, Advocates and Shri Venktesh, CA Revenue By: Shri Ramesh Chandra, CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loyee which also includes shareholder or ay person eligible to get dividend. Further the company had not made any profits and therefore no dividend was declared. Therefore the amount so question would not be in lieu of profits or dividend and would therefore be covered by 36(1)(ii). 43B is clearly applicable to the amount paid as production incentive. The amount of ₹ 12,85,255/- is confirmed. This ground of appeal is ruled against the appellant. 3. Now, the assessee is in appeal by taking the following grounds of appeal :- 1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in upholding the action of the assessing officer in disallowing ₹ 12,85,255 under section 43B of the Income Tax Act,1961 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riram Pistons Rings Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 307 ITR 363 (Del.). Hon'ble Delhi Hon'ble High Court while relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. reported in 171 ITR 256 (SC) and the judgment of Division Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Autopins (India) reported in 192 ITR 161 (Del.) has granted the relief on this issue. 5. On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 6. We have heard both the sides on the issue. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shriram Pistons Rings Ltd. (cited supra) has held as under :- 35. The third question that has been referred for our consideration relates to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee to its employees has any relation to the profits that the assessee may or may not make. It appears from the order of the Tribunal that it has relation to the good work that is done by the employee during the course of his employment and that at the end of the financial year on the recommendation of a senior officer of the assessee, the reward is given to the employee. Consequently, the good work reward cannot fall within the ambit of section 36(1)(ii) of the Act as contended by the Revenue. 40. In CIT vs. Autopins (India) [1991] 192 ITR 161, a Division Bench of this court had occasion to consider payment of various kinds of bonus such as production bonus, attendance bonus and incentive bonus and whether they were within the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
