<?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>1958 (5) TMI 46 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192605</link>
    <description>The available-surplus bonus formula remains the governing basis in industrial adjudication, including for a wasting industry such as gold mining, but it may be adjusted to reflect special requirements proved on evidence. A lease covenant allowing a 15% reserve for revenue expenditure does not by itself create a prior charge or automatic rehabilitation claim; any rehabilitation deduction must be separately justified. Annual pension-fund contributions for a limited class of staff and a bonus amount already provided in an earlier year were treated as non-deductible on the facts. Questions of possible double depreciation and double addition of the initial pension contribution were remitted for fresh findings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 May 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Jun 2017 18:05:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=471292" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1958 (5) TMI 46 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192605</link>
      <description>The available-surplus bonus formula remains the governing basis in industrial adjudication, including for a wasting industry such as gold mining, but it may be adjusted to reflect special requirements proved on evidence. A lease covenant allowing a 15% reserve for revenue expenditure does not by itself create a prior charge or automatic rehabilitation claim; any rehabilitation deduction must be separately justified. Annual pension-fund contributions for a limited class of staff and a bonus amount already provided in an earlier year were treated as non-deductible on the facts. Questions of possible double depreciation and double addition of the initial pension contribution were remitted for fresh findings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 May 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192605</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>