https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168865 Item 5 of Schedule II to the 5 January 1952 notification was construed as covering the general question of bonus, including eligibility and mode of payment, not individual claims for particular years against particular banks; practical difficulties in deciding such claims could not enlarge the reference, so those individual claims were not left pending for another tribunal. Section 10 of the Banking Companies Act 1949 was read broadly to treat industrial profit bonus as remuneration in the form of a share in profits, and that express prohibition prevailed over the general saving provision. The 1956 amendment was held remedial, not declaratory, and did not operate retrospectively for the period in dispute. en-us Tue, 12 May 1959 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Apr 2015 12:23:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168865 Item 5 of Schedule II to the 5 January 1952 notification was construed as covering the general question of bonus, including eligibility and mode of payment, not individual claims for particular years against particular banks; practical difficulties in deciding such claims could not enlarge the reference, so those individual claims were not left pending for another tribunal. Section 10 of the Banking Companies Act 1949 was read broadly to treat industrial profit bonus as remuneration in the form of a share in profits, and that express prohibition prevailed over the general saving provision. The 1956 amendment was held remedial, not declaratory, and did not operate retrospectively for the period in dispute. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 12 May 1959 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168865