Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MOHD. IDRIS versus C.I.T. LUCKNOW

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mohd. Idris v. C.I.T. Lucknow - INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 106 of 1997 [2005] RD-AH 1138 (26 April 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO.37

INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.106 OF 1997

Sri Mohd. Idris, Development Officer,

LIC Of India,. Bijnor. ....Applicant

Versus

The Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow. . ....Respondent

............

Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal, J.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi has referred to following question of law under section 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for opinion of this Court.

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribual was right in upholding action of Assessing Officer in withdrawing deduction u/s 154 out of incentive bonus allowed to the assessee by L.I.C. Of India in assessment year 1990-91 ?"

The present Reference relates to the Assessment Year 1990-91.

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:

Applicant was a development officer in the LIC working at Dhampur branch, district Bijnore. During the assessment year applicant had received incentive bonus. Applicant had claimed certain expenses incurred by him for earning the bonus, which was allowed by the assessing officer in the original assessment. However, in proceeding under section 154 of the Act same was withdrawn. Order passed under section 154 of the Act have been confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and upheld by the Tribunal. Tribunal has held that the incentive bonus was part of the salary and therefore, expenses claimed thereunder is not allowable.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

In view of the decision of this Court in I.T.R. No.93 of 1993 CIT, Kanpur Vs. Sri R.S.Nanda, Kanpur, decided on 15.03.2005  wherein this Court has held that the amount of incentive bonus received by the development officer of LIC forms part of salary and expenses incurred by the development officer for earning such incentive bonus is not allowable except standard deduction.

Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, i.e. in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee

Dt.26.04.2005

R./


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.