<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1981 (9) TMI 188 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66616</link>
    <description>Bonus paid to employees under an agreement, and over and above the minimum bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, was treated as contractual bonus rather than bonus within the statutory ceiling contemplated by section 36(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The deduction restriction applies only to bonus falling within the amount payable under the Bonus Act, so the agreed payment was outside the disallowance provision. On that basis, the payment was allowable as a deduction and the disallowance was not justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Mar 2011 11:56:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=105051" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (9) TMI 188 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66616</link>
      <description>Bonus paid to employees under an agreement, and over and above the minimum bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, was treated as contractual bonus rather than bonus within the statutory ceiling contemplated by section 36(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The deduction restriction applies only to bonus falling within the amount payable under the Bonus Act, so the agreed payment was outside the disallowance provision. On that basis, the payment was allowable as a deduction and the disallowance was not justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66616</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>