Commissioner of Income Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur and Bhandara Nagpur v. Kalyanmal Mills Limited, Indore (SC) BS253204
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:-K. Subba Rao and J.C. Shah, S.M. Sikri, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 588 of 1963. D/d. 17.4.1964.

Commissioner of Income Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur and Bhandara Nagpur - Appellant;

Versus

Kalyanmal Mills Limited, Indore - Respondent

For the Appellant :- K.N. Rajagopal Sastri, Senior Advocate (R.N. Sachthey, Advocate, with him).

For the Respondent :- S.T. Desai, Senior Advocate (T.A. Ramachandran, Advocate, and J.B. Dadachanji, O.C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, Advocates of J.B. Dadachanji and Co., with him).

Cases Referred :-

CIT v. Swadeshi Cotton and Flour Mills, CA No. 587 of 1963.

Swadeshi Cotton and Flour Mills v. CIT, (1961) MPLJ 594.

JUDGMENT

Sikri, J. - The point involved in this appeal is the same as in the CIT v. Swadeshi Cotton and Flour Mills, CA No. 587 of 1963 - Judgment delivered on April 17, 1964 in which we have just delivered judgment. This appeal was filed in this Court after obtaining a certificate under Section 66-A(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, date August 10, 1961. The High Court followed its decision in the case of Swadeshi Cotton and Flour Mills v. CIT, (1961) MPLJ 594.

2. The question which was referred to the High Court was as follows:

3. This question arose out of Assessment Year 1950-51 (previous year calendar year 1949).

4. The assessee is a limited company which owns a textile mill. It had paid Rs. 2,57,000 as bonus to its workers in respect of the calendar year 1947, and claimed it as a deduction in respect of Assessment Year 1950-51. A dispute had arisen between the workmen and the assessee and it was settled by an award made in January 1949 by the Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act.

5. Following our decision and the reasoning in the CIT v. Swadeshi Cotton and Flour Mills, (1961) MPLJ 594, we hold that the High Court was right in answering the question in the affirmative. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.

.