2013 (2) TMI 405

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel. JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) This appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been filed by the assessee being aggrieved by the order dated 23.02.1999 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in ITA No.331/Del/93 relating to the assessment year 1989-90. On 29.10.1999 this Court had framed the following questions for consid....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....taxable income 30,00,000" 2. The learned counsel for the appellant/ assessee submitted at the outset that question Nos.2 & 3 are covered in favour of the assessee. In so far as question No.2 is concerned, he placed reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Echjay Forgings Pvt. Ltd.: (2001) 251 ITR 15 (Bom.) where the Bombay High Court considered the question as t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... revenue, raised a pointed question as to whether, in fact, the provision for payment of bonus in this case was actually an ascertained liability. He raised this issue because, according to him there is a suggestion given in the Tribunal's order that the provision for payment of bonus was a mere estimation as would be apparent from paragraph 7.1 of the impugned order. However, the learned couns....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for payment of bonus was not in accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 and it was merely an estimation then the original assessment of the assessing officer would hold. The question No.2 is answered accordingly. 4. In so far as question No.3 is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant/ assessee submitted that it was covered by the decision of the Supreme Court....