2004 PLP 2150 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus KISAN SEHKARI CHINI MILL LTD.
| Citation | 2004 PLP 2150 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 253 I T R 782 |
| Bench Members | Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri and S. N. Variava, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus KISAN SEHKARI CHINI MILL LTD. |
| Primary Law | Income‑tax‑‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 2150 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income‑tax‑‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 2150 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 253 I T R 782 bench comprising: Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri and S. N. Variava, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 2150 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus KISAN SEHKARI CHINI MILL LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Altaf Ahmad, Additional Solicitor General of India (Rajiv Tyagi and B.V. Balaram Das, Advocates with him) for Appellant.
- Rakesh Dwivedi, Senior Advocate (Vishwajit Singh and Ravi Kumar Verma, Advocates with him) for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated October 15, 1999 of the Allahabad High Court in I.T. Application No. 155 of 1997). ‑‑‑‑Reference‑‑‑Business expenditure‑‑‑Incentive bonus‑‑‑Not admissible under specific provision in S.36(1)(ii)‑‑‑Whether allowable under General Provision in S.37‑‑‑Question of law‑‑‑Indian Income Tax Act. 1961, Ss.36(1)(ii), 37 &
256. The question whether incentive bonus paid by the assessee is allowable under section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if it is not admissible under specific section 36(1)(ii) is a question of law. [The Supreme Court, accordingly, directed the Appellate Tribunal to State a case to the High Court on this question].
Judgment & Decree
The question whether incentive bonus paid by the assessee is allowable under section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if it is not admissible under specific section 36(1)(ii) is a question of law. [The Supreme Court, accordingly, directed the Appellate Tribunal to State a case to the High Court on this question]. Altaf Ahmad, Additional Solicitor General of India (Rajiv Tyagi and B.V. Balaram Das, Advocates with him) for Appellant. Rakesh Dwivedi, Senior Advocate (Vishwajit Singh and Ravi Kumar Verma, Advocates with him) for Respondent. SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J.‑‑‑Heard Mr. Altaf Ahmad, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellants, and Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent. Leave is granted. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in I.T.A. No.155 of 1997, dated October 15, 1999, taking the view that the following question is not a statable question of law. The question reads as follows: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the incentive bonus paid by the assessee is allowable under section 37 if it is not admissible under specific section 36(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" We have perused the order of this Court in Civil Appeal No.3507 of 1998, dated July 25, 1998, as also the order of this Court in Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.15305 to 15307 of 1987, dated May 11, 1988. We are of the view fat the question for consideration by this Court in Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 15305 to 15307 of 1987, dated May 11, 1988, was a different question. The aforementioned question is directly covered by the order of this Court in Civil Appeal No.3507 of 1998, dated July 24, 1998. In our view the said question is a referable question of law and it arises from the order of the Tribunal so it needs to be referred to the High Court. We, therefore, direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the abovementioned question of law to the High Court. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. M.B.A./1105/FC Appeal allowed