Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1987]163ITR769(MP)
K.K. Dube, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee, referring to us for our opinion the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, an unconditional or ascertained liability arose to the assessee for the payment of wages to its workers under the provisions of Rule 29(2) of the M.P. Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Rules, 1968, and the assessee was entitled to the deduction thereof in the assessment year 1970-71 ?'2. The assessee, a bidi manufacturer, for the assessment year 1970-71 claimed deduction of Rs. 3,48,406 as wages of the workers. Under the Madhya Pradesh Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), framed under the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), any manufacturer of bidis is also required to pay wages to the workers for s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1989]177ITR417(MP)
G.G. Sohani, Actg. C.J. 1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows : The assessee carries on the business of manufacture and sale of beedis. While framing the assessment for the assessment year 1976-77, the Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim made by the assessee for deduction of a sum of Rs. 61,642 for holiday wages and leave with wages under the provisions of Sections 21, 26 and 27 of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966. The Income-tax Officer held that as no actual payment in that behalf was made by the assessee, the claim of the assessee in that behalf was liable to be disallowed. The appeal preferred by the assessee was dismissed. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed that the liability of Rs. 61,642 should be considered as ascertained liability for the purp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1996]221ITR870(MP)
1. This is an income-tax reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the I. T. Act') at the instance of the Revenue and the following question of law has been referred by the Tribunal for answer of this court, which reads as under :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the liability of the assessee for the amount of Rs. 61,642 was an ascertained liability under Section 26 of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966, and that the said amount was deductible in computing the income of the assessee ?'2. The brief facts giving rise to this reference are thus : The assessment year involved in this case is 1976-77, the previous year ending March 31, 1976, The assessee has been assessed in the status of a registered firm. The assessee claimed Rs. 61,642 by way of deduction for holiday wages and leave with wages under Sections 21, 26 and 27 of the Bidi and Cigar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1998)146CTR(MP)792
BY THE COURT :This is an IT reference under s. 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IT Act') at the instance of the Revenue and the following question of law has been referred by the Tribunal for answer of this Court, which reads as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the liability of the assessee for the amount of Rs. 61,642 was an ascertained liability under s. 26 of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966, and that the said amount was deductible in computing the income of the assessee ?'2. The brief facts giving rise to this reference are thus : The assessment year involved in this case is 1976-77, the previous year ending 31st March, 1976. The assessee has been assessed in the status of a registered firm. The assessee claimed Rs. 61,642 by way of deduction for holiday wages and leave with wages under ss. 21, 26 and 27 of the Bidi and Cigar Workers (Cond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1998]233ITR631(MP)
A.K. Mathur, C.J.1. At the instance of the assessee under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, the Tribunal was directed to send the statement of case and, accordingly, the following question of law has been referred by the Tribunal for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to claim any deduction for Rs. 3,84,652 on account of leave with wages under the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 ?'2. The year of assessment is 1975-76 and the accounting year ended on March 31, 1975. The assessee is a registered firm engaged in the business of manufacturing beedis. The assessee filed a return showing income at Rs. 4,57,675. It was subsequently revised on March 10, 1977, showing income at Rs. 73,023. In the revised return, it claimed expenses of Rs. 3,84,652 on account of leave with wages as per notification dated December 10, 1976, of the State Governm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2001)IILLJ1634MP
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. This order shall dispose of Misc. Petition No. 987/1990 (Khemchand Motilal Jain v. Appellate Authority under Beedi and Cigar Act and another) and Misc. Petition No. 978/1990 (Khemchand Motilal Jain v. Appellate Authority under Beedi and Cigar Act and another).2. The respondent No. 2 of each petition preferred appeal to the appellate authority andAssistant Labour Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar appointed under Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) inter alia pleading that the present petitioners/employer by playing unfair trade practise terminated their services and as their termination was contrary to the principles of law, therefore, they were entitled to be reinstated with the back wages. The case ofRespondent Kale Khan was registered as Appeal No. 157/1987 while the case of respondent Gul Khai was registered as Appeal No. 37/1988. Each of the employee in his appeal submitted that they were working w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [2002(93)FLR1030]; (2002)IIILLJ152MP
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. The petitioner assailed the order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Beedi & Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966.2. The appeal filed under Section 31(2) of the Act was allowed by the appellate authority. Removal of respondent 2 was held to be illegal not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Reinstatement was directed with back wages.3. Respondent 2 Ibrahim in the appeal filed before the appellate authority alleged that he was working with Khemchand Motilal Jain Tobacco Products Ltd., Sagar. He was removed on July 17, 1993. He was pressurised to submit the resignation which he did notsubmit. Similarly other employees were removed. Hence oral march order was given to the respondent 2. Respondent 2 submitted a representation before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner.4. The petitioner in the reply contended that workman did not turn up on duty of his own. The workman is a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1987]163ITR767(MP)
J.S. Verma, C.J. 1. This order shall also dispose of Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 559 of 1981, since both the cases involve the same points.2. Both these cases arise out of applications made under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer for decision by this court the question of law said to arise out of the Tribunal's order. Having heard both sides, we are satisfied that no such direction is required to be made in these cases.3. The assessee in each case is a manufacturer of bidis, and follows the mercantile system of accounting. During the relevant year, the assessee in each case made provision for payment of wages to its workers for the weekly holiday as required by Section 21 of the Bidi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966. The amount so provided by the assessee was claimed as a deduction under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1990]181ITR362(MP)
G.G. Sohani, Actg. C.J.1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. The material facts giving rise to this reference briefly are as. follows : The assessee carries on the business of manufacture and sale of bidis. While framing the assessment for the assessment year 1976-77, the Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim made by the assessee for deduction of a sum of Rs. 2,03,722 for holiday wages and leave with wages under the provisions of Sections 21, 26 and 27 of the Bidi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966. The Income-tax Officer held that as no actual payment was made in that behalf by the assessee, the claim of the assessee in that behalf was liable to be disallowed. The appeal preferred by the assessee was dismissed. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed that the liability of Rs. 2,03,722 should be considered as an ascertained liability for the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1997]223ITR317(MP)
1. All these aforesaid three references involve common questions of law ; therefore, they are disposed of by a common order :For the convenient disposal of all these aforesaid three references, the facts given in M. C. C. No. 270 of 1987 (Mohd. Hanif and others) are taken into consideration.2. This is a reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), made by the Tribunal at the instance of the assessees and the following two questions have been referred, for answer, to this court by the Tribunal, which read as under :' (1) Whether the Tribunal did not err in law in labelling a sum of Rs. 73,60,451 (correct amount being Rs. 73,30,736) standing to the accounts of 'Minimum Wages Amanat account', 'Bonus Amanat account' and 'Bidi and Cigar Amanat account' as 'Reserves' of the firm, Kale Khan Mohd. Hanif and consequently including in the net wealth of the assessee his proportionate entitlement in the said alleged reserves ? (2) Whether the Tr...
Tag this Judgment!