THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1922, CASES

Section-10(2)(x)

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.

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.