TMI Blog1989 (7) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, referred the following questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal dated June 18, 1982, in I. T. A. No. 48(Coch) of 1981 for our opinion : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction for 'goodwill bonus' under the Income-tax Act ? (2)(a) Whether, on the facts a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction was given by the Income-tax Officer. The Income-tax Officer held that the bonus of Rs. 97,664.87 being in excess of the 20% limit imposed under the Bonus Act was not admissible under section 36(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act. On appeal by the assessee, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the prohibition contained in the proviso to section 36(1)(ii) of the Act had no relevance an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nes to be adopted while considering the payment of bonus in excess of 20% limit under section 36(1)(ii) of the Act have been laid down in a Bench decision of this court in CIT v. P. Alikunju M. A. Nazir, Cashew Industries [1987] 166 ITR 611. This court held that all the three conditions postulated by clauses (a) to (c) of the second proviso must be satisfied, if the payment made in excess of that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentioned in the Bonus Act should stand the test specified in section 36 (1) (ii) of the Act. In the light of the above, we decline to answer the questions referred to us, but at the same time direct the Appellate Tribunal to consider the matter afresh in the light of the decision reported in CIT v. P. Alikunju, M. A. Nazir, Cashew Industries [1987] 166 ITR 611 and I.T.R. No. 185 of 1985 (CIT v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
