<?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>1960 (1) TMI 45 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276587</link>
    <description>General reserves may be deducted from rehabilitation for bonus calculation only where the employer proves, with admissible evidence, that the reserves were actually used as working capital; amounts reasonably earmarked for binding obligations are excluded from available rehabilitation resources. Mere balance-sheet availability or a nominal book entry is insufficient. The burden rests on the employer to establish the factual basis for exclusion, and the Industrial Court should require clear proof and permit workmen to test the case by cross-examination, with affidavit evidence governed by principles reflected in Order XIX CPC. On the facts, the employer failed to prove use as working capital, so the deduction was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 02 Jan 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2018 12:06:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=541772" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (1) TMI 45 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276587</link>
      <description>General reserves may be deducted from rehabilitation for bonus calculation only where the employer proves, with admissible evidence, that the reserves were actually used as working capital; amounts reasonably earmarked for binding obligations are excluded from available rehabilitation resources. Mere balance-sheet availability or a nominal book entry is insufficient. The burden rests on the employer to establish the factual basis for exclusion, and the Industrial Court should require clear proof and permit workmen to test the case by cross-examination, with affidavit evidence governed by principles reflected in Order XIX CPC. On the facts, the employer failed to prove use as working capital, so the deduction was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 02 Jan 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276587</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>