TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court rules against subsidiary creation to avoid bonus payment, emphasizes economic realities</h1> <h3>Workmen of Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. Versus Associated Rubber Industry Ltd.</h3> Workmen of Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. Versus Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. - [1986] 59 COMP. CAS. 134 (SC), [1986] 157 ITR 77, 48 CTR 355, 1986 AIR ... Issues:Industrial dispute over bonus payment; Transfer of shares between companies to reduce bonus payment; Legal entity distinction between companies; Application of legal principles to lift corporate veil for tax and welfare legislation avoidance.Analysis:The case involved an industrial dispute regarding bonus payment to the workmen of a company. The company had transferred shares to a subsidiary to reduce the bonus payable to the workers. The key issue was whether the transfer of shares between the companies was a genuine transaction or a device to avoid payment of higher bonus to the workers.The Industrial Tribunal and the High Court held that the two companies were separate legal entities, and there was no evidence to show that the transfer of shares was a device to avoid bonus payment. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that in cases where legal entities are used to avoid tax or welfare legislations, the court has the authority to lift the corporate veil and look at the economic realities behind the transaction.Referring to previous legal precedents, the Supreme Court highlighted the need to consider the substance of a transaction over its form. The court emphasized that avoidance of welfare legislation is as common as tax avoidance and should be dealt with similarly. In this case, the creation of a subsidiary company solely to reduce the gross profits of the principal company and avoid higher bonus payment to workers was deemed an obvious device.The Supreme Court found that the subsidiary company had no independent business or income apart from receiving dividends from shares transferred by the principal company. The court concluded that the creation of the subsidiary was a clear attempt to reduce the bonus payable to the workers. Despite the winding up and amalgamation of the subsidiary with the principal company later on, the court held that the initial creation of the subsidiary was indeed a device to avoid bonus payment.Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, declaring that the workmen were entitled to be paid bonus at the rate of 16% for the year 1969. The court's decision highlighted the importance of looking beyond the legal formalities to prevent the misuse of corporate structures for avoiding statutory obligations.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
