2011 (7) TMI 524

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion 115J of the Income Tax Act, 1961.   3. The assessee had made a provision for labour welfare expenses, amounting to Rs.9,33,430/-. The said amount was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that it was a mere provision, and that such a provision had been disallowed during the previous assessment year.   4. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Coimbatore. The assessee contended that the payment in question was not in the nature of bonus, but an incentive based on the performance of the workers. The workers had been poorly paid and since, no increments were allowed the minimum bonus of 8.33% ws paid to them. 20% of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ground raised by the Department, in the said appeal, was that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in allowing a sum of Rs.9,33,430/-, as a provision for labour welfare expenses, when a sum of Rs.10,25,069/- had been, actually, spent during the subsequent year.   7. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. On a perusal of the materials available on record the Tribunal found that, for the assessment year 1988-1989, the department had filed an appeal before the Tribunal, on an identical issue, challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), in I.T.A.No.431/Mds/1992, relating to the same assessee. By its order, dated 29.11.2000, after a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of ....