Case Details

Citation(s)
1998 SLG 346 1998 SLD 346 1998 PTD 2650 (1998) 230 ITR 643 (1999) 80 TAX 184
Supreme Court of India
Civil Appeal No.479 of 1985, decision dated: 23rd February,1998
MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ
(Appeal by certificate from the judgment and order, dated April 29, 30, 1981 of the Bombay High Court in Income Tax Reference No. 146 of 1971).Joseph Vellapally, Senior Advocate (Dinesh Mathur, Advocate for JBD & Co., Advocates with him) for Appellant

W.T. SUREN & CO. LTDVsCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Law: Income Tax Act, 1961

Section: 37(1)

Income-tax------Business expenditure---Gratuity---Difference between retrenchment compensation and gratuity---Part of business of - assessee, a subsidiary company closed and transferred to holding company---Same employees of subsidiary company continuing employment with holding company as per agreement---Gratuity for such employees paid to holding company ,- -Assessee had an obligation to pay gratuity---Amount paid was expenditure wholly laid out for purposes of business---Deductible---Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, S.10(2)(xv)---Indian. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. S.25-FF---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.37(1)---[CIT v. W.T. Suren & Co. Ltd. (1982) 138 ICR 91 reversed]. Retrenchment compensation is not the same thing as gratuity. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, specifies the circumstances under which a workman is entitled to compensation. The right to retrenchment compensation arises when the employer terminates the employment or the undertaking of the employer is transferred and in the latter case only if the case does not fall under the proviso to section 25-FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Those provisions cannot certainly be applied in the case of payment of gratuity. Gratuity is payable on the termination of the employment of the employee on any account except dismissal and calculated on the basis of the number of years of service and at the rate prescribed in the scheme. The assessee, a private limited company, was a wholly owned subsidiary of R. One of its activities was the distribution of the products of T which was also another wholly owned subsidiary of R. With effect from May 1, 1959, the assessee closed its unit for distribution of the products of T which business was taken over by R. On April- 22, 1959, the assessee wrote letters to the employees working in the unit dealing with the distribution stating that arrangements had been made for the business conducted by the assessee to be taken over by R, and that the transfer would take effect from May 1, 1959. By this letter, the employees were further informed that arrangements had also been made whereby all the employees of the assessee of the distribution unit would be offered…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492