Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Autopins (India)

192 ITR 161Reported decision1991#23339 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2021.

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Autopins (India)

Dy CIT CC 6 (1), Mumbai vs. M/S Vvf Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal is Allowed

ITA 6908/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No. 6908/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit Cc – 6(1) M/S Vvf Ltd. R. No. 1905, 19Th Floor बिाम/ Plot No. 109, Opp. Sion(E), Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai-400 022 Vs. Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacv-3847-R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad, Ld. Sr. Dr Assessee By : Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Ld. Ar ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 09/08/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 09/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-54, Mumbai [Cit(A)], Dated 23/08/2019 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Learned Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 143(3) On 27/12/2018. The Revenue Is Aggrieved By The Fact The Addition Of Rs.250 Lacs U/S 36(1)(Ii) Made By Ld. Ao While Framing The Assessment Order Has Been Deleted In The Impugned Order.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 114Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)

…voting as required in provision of section 114 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Id. Counsel also relied upon the judgements of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shriram Pistons and Rings Ltd vs. CIT [171 taxmann 81] and also CIT vs. Autopins (India) [192 ITR 161]. I find sufficient force in the arguments of the Id. Counsel which are reproduced above. The Ld.AO applied section 36(l)(ii) of the IT Act for making the disallowance. Section 36(l)(ii) is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: Section 36. (1) The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect of the matters deal…

Luthra & Luthra Law Offices New Delhi, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 802/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantasstt. Year: 2010-11 Luthra & Luthra Law Offices Jcit 9Th Floor & 103, Range-37 Vs. Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba New Delhi. Road, New Delhi – 110 001 Pan Aabfl3712B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Mangal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

…the recommendation of a senior officer of the assessee, the reward is given to the employee. Consequently, the 'good work reward' cannot fall within the ambit of section 36(1) (ii) of the Act as contended by the revenue. 40. In CIT v. Autopins (India) [1991] 192 ITR 161, a Division Bench of this Court had occasion to consider payment of various kinds of bonus such as production bonus, attendance bonus and incentive bonus and whether they were within the contemplation of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. It was held that such types of bonus as well as ex gratia payment would not fall within the provisions of sectio…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Auto Kashyap India Pvt. Ltd

ITA/418/2010HC Delhi12 Apr 2010

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

For Appellant: Mr Sanjeev SabharwalFor Respondent: None
Section 41

…o another. 11. In any case, the question whether there was cessation of liability within the meaning of Section 41 or not is a question of fact which the Tribunal has concluded in favour of the assessee. In Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Autopins (India) 192 ITR 161, the Tribunal returned a finding that certain payments made by the assessee to its workmen were incurred for the purpose of business expediency and were not of the type contemplated by the Payment of Bonus Act and, therefore, Section 36(1)(ii) was not attracted and the liability had not ceased to exist. It was held by this Court that the qu…