2005 (12) TMI 70

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng the disallowance of Rs. 66,577 being payment of bonus of earlier years?" In the light of the facts available on record, it has become necessary to reframe the question and the reframed question is: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that a sum of Rs. 66,577 being the payment of bonus was an allowable deduction?" The assessment year is 1981-82 and the relevant accounting period is the calendar year December 31,1980. For understanding the controversy, it is necessary to take note of the facts as recorded in the assessment order, because in the impugned order dated September 27,1993, the Tribunal has failed to record complete and correct fac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er (Appeals). In the second appeal before the Tribunal, the issue was decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal by relying upon a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. [1992] 193 ITR 349 While doing so, the Tribunal distinguished the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Seth Chemical Works v. CIT [1983] 140 ITR 507. At the time of hearing, Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel relied upon the aforesaid decision of the Calcutta High Court, to contend that the bonus which was relatable to earlier year was wrongly allowed as a deduction. For this purpose, he also relied on the frame of the question referred to this court, to submit that there was no dispute that t....