Cit, Agra Vs. S. Upjeet Singh Kumar, Development Officer, Lic of India - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
counsels: sharnbhoo chopra, for the assessee. head note: income tax salary--incentive bonus received by development officer in licheld: incentive bonus, received by assessee, development officer in lic, forms part of the salary and no other deduction apart from standard deduction was available. income tax act, 1961 s.15 in the allahabad high court r.k. agrawal & prakash krishna, jj. - indian penal code, 1860 [c.a. no. 45/1860]. section 302; [m.c. jain, r.c. deepak & k.k. misra, jj] murder plea as to accused being minor school register and transfer certificate not proved before court according to law held, it has to be ignored and question of age is to be determined on other evidence and circumstances surfacing on record. age determined on the basis of x-ray plates and report prepared by c.m.o., is the correct age of accused. accused was declared to be child on the date of commission of offence of murder. however, considering fact that now accused was around 41 years, he cannot be sent to approved school. accused was directed to pay fine of rs.25,000/- under section 302 i.p.c., amount of fine was directed to be paid as compensation to wife of deceased. mohammadorderthe income tax appellate tribunal, 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, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction @ 50 per cent on the incentive bonus received from his employer the lic ?'2. the present reference relates to the assessment year 1987-88.3. briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :'the respondent-assessee is a development officer in life insurance corporation of india, agra. he has received incentive bonus. the tribunal has held that the amount of incentive bonus is assessable from business and not from the income of the salary.'4. we have heard sri shambhoo chopra, learned standing counsel for the revenue. nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent-assessee.5. this court in it reference no. 89 of 1993, income tax officer v. r.s. nanda decided on 14-3-2005 and in it reference no. 156 of 1993, cit v. k.n. bajpai decided on 18-3-2005 has held that incentive bonus forms part of the salary and no other deduction apart from standard deduction is available.6. respectfully following the aforesaid decisions we answer the question referred to us in the negative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. however, there shall be no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 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, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction @ 50 per cent on the incentive bonus received from his employer the LIC ?'

2. The present Reference relates to the assessment year 1987-88.

3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present Reference are as follows :

'The respondent-assessee is a Development Officer in Life Insurance Corporation of India, Agra. He has received incentive bonus. The Tribunal has held that the amount of incentive bonus is assessable from business and not from the income of the salary.'

4. We have heard Sri Shambhoo Chopra, learned standing counsel for the revenue. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent-assessee.

5. This court in IT Reference No. 89 of 1993, Income Tax Officer v. R.S. Nanda decided on 14-3-2005 and in IT Reference No. 156 of 1993, CIT v. K.N. Bajpai decided on 18-3-2005 has held that incentive bonus forms part of the salary and no other deduction apart from standard deduction is available.

6. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions we answer the question referred to us in the negative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. However, there shall be no order as to costs.