Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the tribunal was justified in disallowing six (6) months bonus paid to the employees.
It appears from a perusal of the assessment order that in the same line of business usually ‘only two bonus are paid. Further it appears that it was found by the D.C.T to be highly excessive. Thus it appears that the payment of bonus made by the assessee is hit by the proviso to section 10(2)(x) of the Act. Therefore it appears that both the A.J.C.T and the ‘Tribunal taking a correct
view of law and facts upheld the decision of the D.C.T. Therefore we are of the opinion that the payment of Six months bonus was unjustified.
M/S Dacca Ware House Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Taxes 9BLT (HCD)-116
Purchase of Compressor —in the instant case as a matter of fact it appears that by replacing the compressor of the air conditioner there has not been any addition to the value of value of assets and as such the D.C.T. ought to have treated those as revenue expenditure and thus both the A.J.C.T and the Tribunal erroneously affirmed the order of the D.C.T on that score without considering this aspect of the case. Therefore, our answer it that the Tribunal was not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case to disallow the amount of Tk. 58,500.00 which has been spent for replacement of the compressor and the same appears to be a revenue expenditure.
M/S Dacca Ware House Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Taxes. 9BLT (HCD)-116
It is contended by applicants Counsel that the micro-bus which was acquired by the assessee was for the purpose of bringing their employees to the office and dropping them to their residences after the office hours—therefore, they ought to have allowed initial depreciation for that assets.
We are of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in affirming the disallowance of initial depreciation and the addition of the assets.
M/S Dacca Ware House Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Taxes. 9BLT (HCD)-116
Section- 19(2)(X) read with Ordinance no. XXIII of 1973 Section-3
By notification No.HCD-37/73/950/l 973 all workers of the Sector Corporation were allowed festival and incentive bonus and since the respondent assessee paid the bonus to the employees as per provision of the Government under the provision of the above Ordinance and notification, the question of earning profit of bonus did not arise. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the High Court Division. As payment of bonus to employees is incentive for service rendered by them, such payment of bonus as directed by the government is not dependent on profit.
Commissioner of Taxes & Ors. Vs. M/S U. M. Factory. 11BLT (AD)-100
Sections-31(2) and (2B)
The view taken by the High Court Division that there is no provision in the said Act for taking fresh evidence or materials at the appellate stage is not correct — We find that the appellate powers of the Appellate Joint Commissioner of Taxes are no different and no less than those of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes.
Dhaka Vegetable Oil Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Taxes 5BLT (AD)-171
In this case the National Board of Revenue has only issued a circular in exercise of its powers under section 5(8) of the said Act. The circular is in the nature of a direction upon Assessing Officers to appreciate evidence of certain materials produced before them in a particular manner, instructions which are binding on them. The only argument which was available with the Appellate Joint Commissioner of Taxes in avoiding the circular is that the assessments were already made when the circular had not yet been issued and therefore the assessments were a closed transaction. But obviously the assessments were not a closed transaction aw1 the Appellate Joint Commissioner of Taxes had the whole question of assessment open before him. If there was a subsequent circular of the National Board of Revenue requiring the assessing officer to treat the evidentiary value of an audit report in a particular manner then that circular was as much binding on the Appellate Joint Commissioner of Taxes as upon the original assessing officer because the assessment had still not attained a finality.
Dhaka Vegetable Oil industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Taxes 5BLT (AD)-171
The Insurance Act, 1938 (As Amended) Sections-2(13D) and 46
“Insured” means a person natural or legal who has been insured by a an insurer against some risks or eventualities. For the purpose of Section-46 of the Act, the insured must be the same person as the holder of policy. And policy-holder as defined under Section-2( I 3D) of the Act is inclusive one.
Janata Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. M/S Islam Steel Mills Ltd. & Ors. 8 BLT (HCD)-311.
Section-46 of the Act, empowers a holder of policy to sue for any relief in respect of the policy in any court of competent jurisdiction in Bangladesh; any if the suit is brought in Bangladesh any question of law arising in connection with an such policy shall b determined according to the law in force in Bangladesh. But such right is given only to the holder of a policy and an insurer cannot claim such right to go to a civil Court. The intention of the legislature not giving any such right i.e. opening the doors of Civil Court to an insurer for avoiding the payment of the insured amount which he cannot avoid under the terms of the policy.
Homeland Life Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Jahanara Begum & Ors. 8BLT (HCD)-361
In all the cases, the goods secured, and the subject matter of the policy were admittedly owned by the plaintiff. Premiums were paid out of the account of the plaintiff. When the claims were placed and surveys held on the application of the plaintiff, the defendant never challenged and/or objected to such acts of the plaintiff. It is also admitted that the goods damaged were kept stored in the premises of the mills of the plaintiff. In all the policies, the goods were stated to have been owned and occupied in the premises of the mills of the plaintiffs and were pledged to the Bank, defendant No. 2 as security for the debts obtained by the plaintiff and the Bank and a charge on the goods. In all the policies, the defendant No. 2 had been stated as mortgage, the plaintiff as mortgagor and the policy was made subject to a Mortgage clause. The plaintiff as was named in all the policies is quite competent to sue the defendant 1 Insurance Company for insurance claims a policy holder under Section-46 of the Insurance Act.
Janatainsurance Company Ltd. Vs. M/S Islam Steel Mills Ltd. Vs. & Ors. 8BLT (HCD)-311
Section-47A of the Act deals specifically for settlement of the dispute, if any, with regard to life policy. Section says that if the dispute arising under a policy of life insurance assuring a sum not exceeding five thousand taka may be referred to the Controller of Insurance and the Controller may, after hearing the parties and taking such evidence as he may in his absolute discretion, consider necessary, settle the dispute, Under subsection (2 of Section 47A the decision of the Controller of Insurance is final and shall not be called in question in any court and shall be deemed to be a decree of a court. There is of course no other provisions in the Act providing any forum for settlement of any claim in respect of a life insurance police exceeding Taka Five thousand.
Homeland Life Ins. Co. Ltd. V. Jahanara Begum &Ors. 8BLT (HCD)-361
Plaintiff-appellant is entitled to the statutory interest under the law and the Court has no discretion in the matter.
Chaina Marine Products Ltd. Vs. Reliance Insurance Ltd. 6BLT (AD)-234.