2003 (2) TMI 520

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d against the impugned order of the Income-tax Tribunal dt. 18th Dec., 2000, vide Annexure 3 to the appeal. The main point pressed by the learned counsel for the Department is that the amount of Rs. 9,82,426 was wrongly allowed by the Tribunal under s. 36(i) and (ii) or s. 37(1) of the IT Act. This question has been discussed in para 5 of the impugned order of the Tribunal. It appears that in t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....calculating bonus payable to the workmen is that we have to start from the profit of the previous year as mentioned in the P&L a/c of the company. We have then to add certain amounts and subtract certain amounts which are mentioned in the Payment of Bonus Act. We then come to the available surplus. Sixty per cent of the available surplus is the allocable surplus payable to the workmen. The idea of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... facts, as in the present case were involved. The Calcutta High Court held that the payment made above the amount due under the Act to keep industrial peace was allowable as a business expenditure. We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid decision of Calcutta High Court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant then submits that the Tribunal was not justified in deleting addition of 18 per....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etting up of any trust, nor as contribution to the same. The learned Tribunal has relied upon the decision in Dy. CIT vs. Chloride Industries Ltd. (2001) 70 TTJ (Cal) 407: (2000) 111 Taxman 81(Cal)(Mag) and Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2000) 111 Taxman 186(Del)(Mag). We respectfully agree with the aforesaid decisions. 6. It may be mentioned here that even if the amount is not legally d....