<?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>1985 (2) TMI 78 - ITAT CALCUTTA-C</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60282</link>
    <description>Additional payment made under an industrial settlement was examined for deductibility where employees received bonus at the statutory rate plus an extra ad hoc amount described as welfare expenses. The majority view treated the extra sum as part of the bonus arrangement and considered that, after the first proviso to section 36(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, bonus in establishments governed by the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 could not exceed the statutory entitlement; amounts barred under that provision could not be claimed under section 37(1). The Third Member, however, treated the payment as a separate settlement cost incurred to secure industrial peace, outside the restricted bonus regime, and regarded it as deductible business expenditure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Jan 2011 15:17:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=98730" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (2) TMI 78 - ITAT CALCUTTA-C</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60282</link>
      <description>Additional payment made under an industrial settlement was examined for deductibility where employees received bonus at the statutory rate plus an extra ad hoc amount described as welfare expenses. The majority view treated the extra sum as part of the bonus arrangement and considered that, after the first proviso to section 36(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, bonus in establishments governed by the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 could not exceed the statutory entitlement; amounts barred under that provision could not be claimed under section 37(1). The Third Member, however, treated the payment as a separate settlement cost incurred to secure industrial peace, outside the restricted bonus regime, and regarded it as deductible business expenditure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60282</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>