9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (6) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law for the decision of this court : "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the bonus paid as per the settlement arrived at a conciliation conference does not come within the purview of the Payment of Bonus Act and, therefore, the first proviso to section 36(1)(ii ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 35B of the Income-tax Act for commission payment of Rs. 1,07,599 paid to Messrs. Kasturi Nagesh Pai and Co. for the sale of goods by the assessee outside India, that is, Russia. The, Income-tax Officer negatived the plea holding that the payment was made in India and not outside India. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the plea of the assessee for deduction of Rs. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bonus, the Appellate Tribunal held that the first proviso to section 36(1)(ii) cannot govern the allowability of the claim. None the less, the Appellate Tribunal proceeded to consider the claim under the second proviso to section 36(1)(ii) of the Act. It held that the amount paid was reasonable. This is stated in paragraph 3 of its order dated March 2, 1984. The guidelines to be adopted for consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment arrived at the conciliation conference should stand the test specified in section 36(1)(ii) of the Act read along with the provisos, we decline to answer the question further, but direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to consider the matter afresh in the light of the decision of this court in CIT v. Alikunju (P.) Nazir (M. A.) Cashew Industries [1987] 166 ITR 611. Question No. (i) is answe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
