Cit Vs. Shantilal Chhajed - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
counsels: r.l. jain, for the revenue. head note: income tax exemption under section 10(14)--special allowanceincentive bonus or commissionheld: the assessee was not entitled claim of 40 per cent expenses out of the amount received by way of incentive bonus or commission disallowed. income tax act, 1961 s.10(14) in the madhya pradesh high court, indore bench , a.m. sapre & ashok kumar tiwari, jj. - section 2(f): [dipak misra, k.k. lahoti & rajendra menon, jj] service tax - packaging and bottling of liquor whether amounts to manufacture within meaning of section 2(f) of central excise act 1944? finance act 932 of 1994), section 65 (76 b) (as amended on 16.6.2005) - held, the first limb of the inclusive definition of the manufacture under section 2(f) of central excise act has a.....orderthis is a reference made at the instance of the revenue under section 256(1) of the income tax act by the tribunal to answer the following question of law for opinion:'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to claim 40% expenses out of the amount received by him by way of incentive bonus or commission?'2. heard shri r.l. jain, learned counsel for petitioner. despite repeated summons sent to the assessee, he has not chosen to either accept the summons or receive the summons. under these circumstances, we have no option but to proceed to answer the reference made to this court by the tribunal.3. having heard the learned counsel for the revenue and having perused the record of the case including.....

Judgment:
ORDER

This is a reference made at the instance of the revenue under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act by the Tribunal to answer the following question of law for opinion:

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to claim 40% expenses out of the amount received by him by way of incentive bonus or commission?'

2. Heard Shri R.L. Jain, learned counsel for petitioner. Despite repeated summons sent to the assessee, he has not chosen to either accept the summons or receive the summons. Under these circumstances, we have no option but to proceed to answer the reference made to this court by the Tribunal.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the revenue and having perused the record of the case including the statement of the case drawn by the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the question involved in this case and as referred to by the Tribunal to this court referred (supra) stands already answered by the Division Bench of this court in a case in CIT v. A.K. Ghosh : [2003]263ITR536(MP) .

4. It is in this case i.e., A.K. Ghosh (supra) question referred to this court was examined and answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. We sitting as a coordinate bench is bound by the law laid down by the Division Bench of this court in the case of A.K. Ghosh (supra). Moreover, we have not been able to find any contrary view taken by the Supreme Court of India on the question referred to this court, subsequent to the decision by D.B. in the case of A.K. Ghosh (supra) which may entitle us to take a view taken by the Supreme Court on the aforesaid question.

5. Accordingly and in view of the aforesaid discussion and in view of the law laid down by this court in the case of A.K. Ghosh (supra), we do not wish to burden our order by narrating the entire facts except to answer the question referred to us in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.

6. Accordingly and in view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the reference made to this court in affirmative i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. In other words, we hold that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to claim 40% expenses out of the amount received by him by way of incentive bonus or commission.

No costs.