9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, has referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for opinion to this court: "Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has been in error in holding that the assessee, a Development Officer, was entitled to 40 per cent, expenses in relation to incentive bonus to the tune of Rs. 4,569, Rs. 14,558 and Rs. 19,300 for the three years under reference respectively, received by him over and above his salary from the Corporation?" The reference relates to the assessment years 1980-81 to 1982-83. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows: The respondent-assessee was a Development Officer in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses incidental to employment. He further submitted that the incentive bonus or the bonus commission which the respondent had been granted was in relation to the work done for the employer and was in lieu of or in addition to the salary and formed part of the salary by virtue of section 17(1)(iv) of the Act. In support of his aforesaid submissions, he has relied upon the following decisions: (i) CIT v. Ram Krishna Banik [1995] 215 ITR 901 (Gauhati); (ii) CIT v. Anil K. Hazarika [2001] 248 ITR 8 (SC); and (iii) CIT v. Dr. Mrs. Usha Verma [2002] 254 ITR 404 (P H). We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made by learned standing counsel and we find that it is not in dispute that the respondent has been employed and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ness procured by him. The definition of "salary" under section 17 of the Act is wide enough to include the incentive bonus paid to an employee. It forms part of the salary. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the cases of K.A. Choudary v. CIT [1990] 183 ITR 29; M. Krishna Murthy v. CIT [1985] 152 ITR 163; CIT v. B. Chinnaiah [1995] 214 ITR 368; the Orissa High Court in the case of CIT v. Govind Chandra Pani [1995] 213 ITR 783 the Rajasthan High Court in the cases of CIT v. Shiv Raj Bhatia [1997] 227 ITR 7; P.N. Verma v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 24; CIT v. Moti Mal Mohnot [1996] 134 CTR 88 ; CIT v. Jag Mohan Goyal [1996] 134 CTR 90 ; CIT v. Sheo Raj Bhatia [1999] 235 ITR 523 (Appex.) and the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E.A. Rajendran [1999] 235 ITR 514; and the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the case of M.D. Patil [1998] 229 ITR 71. Thus, the Tribunal was not justified in upholding the allowance of deduction of 40 per cent, as expenses from the incentive bonus. So far as the cases cited by learned standing counsel are concerned, we find that in the case of Ram Krishna Banik [1995] 215 ITR 901, the Gauhati High Court has held that the petitioner had not placed any other material, such as, the terms governing the assessee's employment and in the absence of such material being placed on record, it is not possible to take a different view than what has been taken by the Tribunal and the finding recorded by the Tribunal is based on the material on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
