1991 (4) TMI 96

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct both on facts and in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,21,755 made by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 36(1)(ii) on account of bonus paid in excess of the prescribed limit ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-ta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re having been incurred for the purpose of business expediency. In other words, the findings of the Tribunal were that the payment was made for the purpose of the assessee's business and would be clearly covered by the provisions of section 37 of the Act. These payments were not of the type contemplated by the Payment of Bonus Act and, therefore, section 36(1)(ii) was not attracted. The aforesaid .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X