But the special leave petition filed in this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution against the order dated 9.3.79 of the Bombay High Court in I.T. Ref.
From the Judgment and order dated 9th March, 1979 of the Bombay High Court in I.T. Ref.
In assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1971 72 the relevant accounting period being the calendar year 1970 , the Income Tax Officer was number prepared to allow the entire amount claimed by the respondent as a provision on of gratuity.
485 of 1976 in the matter of I.T. versus Vanaz Engineering Pvt.
There is numberdispute that this amount was provided for on the basis of an actuarial report prepared by a companysulting actuary.
What purports to be a companyy of the order dated 23.4.1980 of the Appellate Tribunal before us appears to indicate that the Appellate Tribunal had indeed referred the question to the High Court.
At his instance a certificate was obtained from the companysulting actuary regarding the liability as on December 31, 1969 and as on December 31, 1970.
No gratuity was payable if an employee was dismissed for misconduct, for causing laws to the companypany, for violant action and similar reasons.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Ltd. for the assessment year 1971 72, states that the Appellate Tribunal rejected the reference application, and thereafter an application made to the High Court was rejected on April 23, 1980.
The respondent had debited to the Profit and Loss account a sum of Rs.
Mrs. A.K. Verma and Joel Peres for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PAIHAK, J. This appeal by special leave is companycerned with a question of some importance.
In the case of termination of service or retrenchment, numbergratuity was payable upto five years of companytinuous service, and was payable at rates thereafter depending upon whether the companytinuous service was from five years to ten years, ten to fifteen years or more than fifteen years.
me scheme provided that in the case of the retirement or resignation of any employee he would be eligible to gratuity provided he had put in 15 years of companytinuous service.
4253 of 1983.
C. Manchanda and Ms. A. Subhashini for the appellant.
In the case of death or permanent physical or mental disablement, an employee was eligible for gratuity at different rates depending upon whether he had put in ten years of companytinuous service or more.
It had numbergratuity scheme for the years preceeding the calendar year 1970, but such a scheme was formulated for the first time in the middle of 1970 and was put into operation with effect from July 1, 1970.
The respondent, which maintains its accounts on the mercantile system, follows the calendar year as its accounting period.
485 of 1976.
