Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
The High Court ruled that mere reflection of an entry in the balance sheet liability column cannot constitute an 'agreement' for payment of gratuity u/s 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. An underlying document or contract between the parties explicitly agreeing to pay gratuity is necessary. In the absence of such an agreement or contract, the stray entry made by the petitioners themselves in the company's balance sheet, days before selling their stake, cannot create a liability for gratuity payment. The petitioners' names were not included in the LIC gratuity insurance policy, and no evidence suggested previous directors received gratuity. Therefore, the petitioners' claim for gratuity amounting to Rs. 1.21 crores was untenable and rightly rejected by the authorities.
The High Court ruled that mere reflection of an entry in the balance sheet liability column cannot constitute an 'agreement' for payment of gratuity u/s 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. An underlying document or contract between the parties explicitly agreeing to pay gratuity is necessary. In the absence of such an agreement or contract, the stray entry made by the petitioners themselves in the company's balance sheet, days before selling their stake, cannot create a liability for gratuity payment. The petitioners' names were not included in the LIC gratuity insurance policy, and no evidence suggested previous directors received gratuity. Therefore, the petitioners' claim for gratuity amounting to Rs. 1.21 crores was untenable and rightly rejected by the authorities.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
