Ita/48/1999 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Kumbhi Kasari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Dist Kolhapur
High Court
12 Mar 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Ita/48/1999 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Kumbhi Kasari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Dist Kolhapur
Date of order
12 Mar 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Ita/48/1999 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Kumbhi Kasari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Dist Kolhapur, the High Court (2007) decided the matter.
Issue: The above application was admitted by this Court on 22nd April, 1999 on the following question of law : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Bonus and Incentive Bonus paid to employees drawing salary in excess of Rs.2,50...
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.48 OF 1999
The Commissioner of Income tax .. Petitioner.
V/s.
Kumbhi Kasari Sahakari Sakhar
Karkhana Limited .. Respondent.
Mr.B.M. Chatterji for the petitioner.
Mr.A.K. Jasani for the respondent.
CORAM : DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 12TH MARCH, 2007.
P.C. :
1. The above application was admitted by this Court
on 22nd April, 1999 on the following question of law :
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified
in holding that the Bonus and Incentive Bonus
paid to employees drawing salary in excess of
Rs.2,500/- (Rs.1,600/-) per month was allowable
as a deduction u/s.36(1)(ii) or Section 37(1) of
the Income Tax Act, relying on the decision of
the Hon’ble High Court in the case of
Raghuvanshi Mills Ltd., (I.T. Ref.No.169 of
1987) when the payment in the assessee’s case
does not cover contractual payment or customary
payment and also the assessee does not have
profit within the meaning of second proviso to
section 36(1)(ii) of the Act. The facts of the
case of Raghuvanshi Mills Ltd., and that of the
present case are clearly distinguishable ?
3. In the light of the judgments in CIT V/s.
Mafatlal Fine Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (263
ITR 140) and in the case of CIT V/s. Rajaram Bandekar &
2
Sons (Shipping) Pvt. Ltd. (237 ITR 628) both the
learned counsel submitted that the matter requires
consideration. Hence, statement of case is called for.
The Tribunal is directed to send the statement of case
as expeditiously as possible.
4. The application stands disposed of.
(DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.
EaseValue