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.I 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.I. 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)-16

Revenue Expenditure

Purchase of Compressor —in the instant ease 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

Initial depreciation

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.

Held: We are of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in aft inning the disallowance of initial depreciation and the addition of the assets.

M/S Dacca Ware HouseLtd. Vs. Commissioner of Taxes. 9BLT (HCD)-116

Section-19(2)(X) read with Ordinance no. XXIII of 1973 Section-3

By notification No. HCD-37/73/950/1973 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. 11 BLT (AD)-l00.