High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Commissioner of Income Tax Haryana, Roht v. Sh. V.M. Chawla, Development Officer, LI - ITR-155-1998  RD-P&H 11606 (30 November 2006)
I.T.R. No.155 of 1998
Date of decision: 08.12.2006
Commissioner of Income Tax Haryana, Rohtak.
Sh. V.M. Chawla, Development Officer, LIC, Panipat.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the revenue.
Following question of law has been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench `A', New Delhi, arising out of its order dated 24.07.1985 in I.T.A. No.8768/Del/90 in respect of assessment years 1988-89:-
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in law in allowing deduction @ 40% as expenses out of incentive Bonus which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer in view of definition of sec.17(1) (iv) of the Act and confirmed by the Ld. CTT(A)."
We find that the issue stands covered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee by the judgment of this Court in B.M. Parmar v. C.I.T.
(1999) 235 ITR 679. In our recent judgment dated 5.9.2006 in I.T.R. No.15 of 1995 (The Commissioner of Income Tax, Haryana, Rohtak v. Kamal Kishore Batra DO, LIC, Kalanaur, Rohtak), we have answered the question in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.
Since no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee, we return the reference unanswered.
( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL )
December 08, 2006 ( RAJESH BINDAL )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.