2001 (10) TMI 25

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eferred for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the "Act"), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "E", Delhi (in short "the Tribunal"): "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that amounts of Rs.2,60,142 and Rs.5,403 paid to the employees and officers of the company were .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (in short "the CIT(A)"). The said authority accepted the assessee's stand holding that the amount paid cannot be considered as unreasonable when the assessee had earned a large income of Rs.80 lakhs during the accounting year 1972-73 to which the payment relates. The payment was made after due sanction and on the basis of the norms prescribed by the Bureau of Public Enterprises. The Revenue carri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he opinion of this court. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue. There is no appearance on behalf of the assessee. It was submitted that the business needs of the company did not warrant this payment and in any event it was much above the limit prescribed under the Payment of Bonus Act. As noted above both the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal had recorded findings .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X