TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee. The following two questions have been referred to this court for opinion "(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the disallowance of the assessee's claim of Rs.25,782 as surtax liability while computing its taxable income for the assessment year 1977-78? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel for the assessee, contends that a tax paid by the assessee is not income but is a deductible part of the expenditure. He further submits that the action of the Revenue in disallowing the amount kept for set on of bonus under section 15(1) of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, could not have been denied as a permissible deduction. Mr. Sawhney, on the other hand, has pointed out that both th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court has taken a similar view in Rayalaseema Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1985] 155 ITR 19. On a consideration of the matter, we find that the decisions conclude the answer to the questions against the assessee. Respectfully following these decisions, we answer both the questions against, the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The reference is disposed of accordingly. No costs. - - TaxTMI - TM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
