https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37264 The High Court clarified that the disputed amount of Rs. 17,922 was under consideration, as Rs. 8,110 had already been allowed. It found that the payment, whether termed as "gratuity" or "retrenchment compensation," did not fall under section 36(1)(ii). The court ruled that the payment of gratuity to surplus employees during a business transfer was a legitimate business expense under section 37(1), as the company continued its operations post-transfer. Consequently, the deduction was allowed under section 37(1), and costs were awarded to the assessee. en-us Wed, 24 Jan 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Mar 2010 16:53:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37264 The High Court clarified that the disputed amount of Rs. 17,922 was under consideration, as Rs. 8,110 had already been allowed. It found that the payment, whether termed as "gratuity" or "retrenchment compensation," did not fall under section 36(1)(ii). The court ruled that the payment of gratuity to surplus employees during a business transfer was a legitimate business expense under section 37(1), as the company continued its operations post-transfer. Consequently, the deduction was allowed under section 37(1), and costs were awarded to the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 24 Jan 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37264