1965 (3) TMI 17

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to entitle the respondents to any bonus. As the dispute could not be settled, the matter was referred by the Government of Bomby to the tribunal. The tribunal went into the calculations on the basis of the Full Bench formula and came to the conclusion that there was sufficient available surplus to warrant payment of bonus at the rate 10 per cent. of the basic earnings of each workman for the year 1959. It, therefore, gave an award to the effect that the appellant would pay 10 per cent. of their basic earnings for the year 1959 as bonus to the workmen concerned. The appellant then obtained special leave from this court; and that is how the matter has come up before us. Three points have been urged on behalf of the appellant in support 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

....come-tax Act, it is enough to say that levy of income-tax under section 23A of the Income-tax Act depends upon certain conditions being fulfilled and in the absence of those conditions being fulfilled, no income-tax under section 23A is due. It is true that the Full Bench formula on the basis of which the available surplus is found is in many respects notional. Even so, we are of opinion that income-tax on the basis of section 23A cannot be allowed even notionally, for income-tax under that section may or may not be leviable at all. Therefore, an employer if he claims deduction for income-tax under section 23A must show that in actual fact such income-tax was levied on him for the year in dispute. In the present case the evidence on behalf ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at in an earlier reference the appellant had contended that there was an agreement with the workmen that the claim for rehabilitation should be allowed at rupees one lakh including the notional normal depreciation for each year for the period of four years from 1957 to 1960. The union in that case had not denied the agreement but had contended that it was conditional on an overall settlement of bonus for all the four years; but as no such overall settlement could be arrived at, the union contended that the agreement should not be enforced. In that case the tribunal had observed that the question of bonus for the years 1959/1960 would be at large, i.e., it would be open to the parties to agitate again on the point of rehabilitation. Even so,....