Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sheo Raj Bhatia

Decided On : May-01-1996

Court : Rajasthan

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]
Code Context


$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Commissioner of Income tax Vs. Sheo Raj Bhatia Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 256(1',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 256(1',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 16'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'B.R. Arora',
			(int) 1 => 'Jaipur Bench',
			(int) 2 => 'Jaipur',
			(int) 3 => 'Jaipur Bench',
			(int) 4 => 'Jaipur',
			(int) 5 => 'K.M. Baheti',
			(int) 6 => 'Udaipur Range',
			(int) 7 => 'Udaipur',
			(int) 8 => 'Jaipur Bench',
			(int) 9 => 'R. K. Khuteta v. ITO',
			(int) 10 => 'ITA Nos',
			(int) 11 => 'Shiv Raj Bhatia',
			(int) 12 => 'Shiv Raj Bhatia',
			(int) 13 => 'Salary',
			(int) 14 => 'Shiv Raja Bhatia',
			(int) 15 => 'Jaipur Bench',
			(int) 16 => 'Jaipur'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the assessment year 1985-86',
			(int) 1 => '1961',
			(int) 2 => 'September 22, 1965',
			(int) 3 => 'the assessment year 1985-86',
			(int) 4 => 'January 27, 1986',
			(int) 5 => 'September 14, 1987',
			(int) 6 => 'June 23, 1989',
			(int) 7 => 'June 23, 1989',
			(int) 8 => 'March 26, 1990',
			(int) 9 => 'September 22, 1965',
			(int) 10 => 'today',
			(int) 11 => 'September 22, 1965',
			(int) 12 => '1774'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Appellate Tribunal',
			(int) 1 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India',
			(int) 2 => 'Board's Circular No',
			(int) 3 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation',
			(int) 4 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India at Sirohi',
			(int) 5 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation',
			(int) 6 => 'ITO',
			(int) 7 => 'Appellate',
			(int) 8 => 'Appellate',
			(int) 9 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 10 => 'Appellate',
			(int) 11 => 'Revenue',
			(int) 12 => 'the High Court',
			(int) 13 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 14 => 'Board',
			(int) 15 => 'D.B. Income-tax Reference No',
			(int) 16 => 'CIT v.',
			(int) 17 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation',
			(int) 18 => 'Board',
			(int) 19 => 'CIT',
			(int) 20 => 'Board's Circular No',
			(int) 21 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation',
			(int) 22 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India',
			(int) 23 => 'Board',
			(int) 24 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India's',
			(int) 25 => 'Development Officers',
			(int) 26 => 'the Board's Instruction No.'
		),
		'MONEY' => array(
			(int) 0 => '50 per cent',
			(int) 1 => '40 per cent',
			(int) 2 => '50 per cent',
			(int) 3 => '50 per cent'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '2',
			(int) 1 => '50,132',
			(int) 2 => '20,000',
			(int) 3 => '84',
			(int) 4 => '20,000',
			(int) 5 => '334',
			(int) 6 => 'Tribunal,'by',
			(int) 7 => '1',
			(int) 8 => '524',
			(int) 9 => '1',
			(int) 10 => '524',
			(int) 11 => '1',
			(int) 12 => '524',
			(int) 13 => '1'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Jaipur'
		),
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Shiv Raj Bhatia's',
			(int) 1 => 'Shiv Raj Bhatia's',
			(int) 2 => 'Shiv Raj Bhatia's'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '754051',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 15 and 16',
			'appealno' => 'D.B.I.T.R. No. 32 of 1992',
			'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sheo Raj Bhatia',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Shiv Raj Bhatia ). The controversy involved in the present case as well as in the case of Shiv Raj Bhatia is that the incentive bonus received by the Development Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation, whether can fall within the meaning of the words 'salary',perquisites' or 'profits in lieu of salary' and as such is taxable under the head 'Salary' or it is an income from business or profession on which the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of the amount which he spent for procuring the business to earn the incentive bonus and whether the Board's circular No.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Sandeep Bhandawat, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Vineet Kothari, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-05-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' B.R. Arora and; P.C. Jain, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.R. Arora, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, for the assessment year 1985-86, in the case of the assessee, referred the following question of law, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned members of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal were justified in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow 50 per cent, deduction of incentive bonus received by the assessee from the Life Insurance Corporation of India relying on Board's Circular No. 14/9/65-IT (AI) dated September 22, 1965, which, in fact, is applicable to the Life Insurance Corporation agents and not for Development Officers ?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The assessee was working as Development Officer in the office of the Life Insurance Corporation of India at Sirohi. During the assessment year 1985-86, the assessee, apart from the salary and other allowance, received an amount of Rs. 50,132 from the Life Insurance Corporation as incentive bonus. He claimed a deduction of Rs. 20,000, i.e., 40 per cent, of the incentive bonus as the expenses incurred by him to procure the incentive bonus. The assessing authority, i.e., the Income-tax Officer, Sirohi, relying upon the judgment of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, in the case of ITO v. K.M. Baheti (ITA No. 469/JP/ 84) held that the incentive bonus is to be treated as part of the salary and, therefore, only the standard deduction is allowable and the claim of the assessee for deduction on account of additional expenses to the tune of Rs. 20,000 cannot be allowed. Dissatisfied with the order dated January 27, 1986, passed by the Income-tax Officer, Sirohi, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Udaipur Range, Udaipur, who, by his order dated September 14, 1987, confirmed the disallowance made by the Income-tax Officer and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on this ground but partly allowed the appeal on other grounds.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. The Tribunal, by its order dated June 23, 1989, relying upon its earlier judgment given in the case of R. K. Khuteta v. ITO (ITA Nos. 334 and 335/JP/87) reversed the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and allowed the claim of the assessee. Dissatisfied with the order dated June 23, 1989, the Revenue moved an application under Section 256(1) of the Act to refer the questions of law mentioned in the application for the opinion of the High Court and the Tribunal,'by its order dated March 26, 1990, referred the question of lawmentioned in paragraph No. 1 above (page 524) for the opinion of this court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Tribunal allowed the deduction at 50 per cent. on the amount of incentive bonus relying upon the Board's circular.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The material facts, on which the question mentioned in paragraph 1 (page 524) above has to be decided are similar to those in D.B. Income-tax Reference No. 8 of 1992 (CIT v. Shiv Raj Bhatia ). The controversy involved in the present case as well as in the case of Shiv Raj Bhatia is that the incentive bonus received by the Development Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation, whether can fall within the meaning of the words 'salary', 'perquisites' or 'profits in lieu of salary' and as such is taxable under the head 'Salary' or it is an income from business or profession on which the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of the amount which he spent for procuring the business to earn the incentive bonus and whether the Board's circular No. 14/9/65-IT(A-I) dated September 22, 1965, which, in fact, is applicable to LIC agents, is applicable to Development Officers or not. It has been held in CIT v. Shiv Raja Bhatia decided by us today, that the incentive bonus paid to the Development Officer is not a personal gift but is paid as remuneration for his services as employee and, therefore, it forms part of the 'salary'. As the incentive bonus is part of the 'salary' of the assessee and is exigible to tax, the assessee is entitled only to standard deduction permissible under Section 16 of the Act only. It has further been held in Shiv Raj Bhatia's case that the Board's Circular No. 14/9/65-IT(A-I) dated September 22, 1965, which relates to the agents of the Life Insurance Corporation only is not applicable in the case of the Development Officers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The question of law referred for the opinion of this court, mentioned in paragraph 1 (page 524) above, is identical to that which was referred for the opinion of this court in Shiv Raj Bhatia's case and this court, in Shiv Raj Bhatia's case answered the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. For the same reasons, the above quoted question No. 1 is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee in the same manner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Consequently, the reference is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, and it is held that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, was not justified in directing to allow 50 per cent. deduction of the incentive bonus received by the assessee from the Life Insurance Corporation of India, relying on the Board's circular which is applicable only to the Life Insurance Corporation of India's agents and not to the Development Officers and the case of Development Officers is governed by the Board's Instruction No. 1774.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1996)134CTR(Raj)264; [1999]235ITR523(Raj)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Sheo Raj Bhatia',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '754051'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Commissioner of Income tax Vs. Sheo Raj Bhatia Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 256(1',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 256(1',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 16'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'B.R. Arora',
		(int) 1 => 'Jaipur Bench',
		(int) 2 => 'Jaipur',
		(int) 3 => 'Jaipur Bench',
		(int) 4 => 'Jaipur',
		(int) 5 => 'K.M. Baheti',
		(int) 6 => 'Udaipur Range',
		(int) 7 => 'Udaipur',
		(int) 8 => 'Jaipur Bench',
		(int) 9 => 'R. K. Khuteta v. ITO',
		(int) 10 => 'ITA Nos',
		(int) 11 => 'Shiv Raj Bhatia',
		(int) 12 => 'Shiv Raj Bhatia',
		(int) 13 => 'Salary',
		(int) 14 => 'Shiv Raja Bhatia',
		(int) 15 => 'Jaipur Bench',
		(int) 16 => 'Jaipur'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the assessment year 1985-86',
		(int) 1 => '1961',
		(int) 2 => 'September 22, 1965',
		(int) 3 => 'the assessment year 1985-86',
		(int) 4 => 'January 27, 1986',
		(int) 5 => 'September 14, 1987',
		(int) 6 => 'June 23, 1989',
		(int) 7 => 'June 23, 1989',
		(int) 8 => 'March 26, 1990',
		(int) 9 => 'September 22, 1965',
		(int) 10 => 'today',
		(int) 11 => 'September 22, 1965',
		(int) 12 => '1774'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Appellate Tribunal',
		(int) 1 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India',
		(int) 2 => 'Board's Circular No',
		(int) 3 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation',
		(int) 4 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India at Sirohi',
		(int) 5 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation',
		(int) 6 => 'ITO',
		(int) 7 => 'Appellate',
		(int) 8 => 'Appellate',
		(int) 9 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 10 => 'Appellate',
		(int) 11 => 'Revenue',
		(int) 12 => 'the High Court',
		(int) 13 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 14 => 'Board',
		(int) 15 => 'D.B. Income-tax Reference No',
		(int) 16 => 'CIT v.',
		(int) 17 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation',
		(int) 18 => 'Board',
		(int) 19 => 'CIT',
		(int) 20 => 'Board's Circular No',
		(int) 21 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation',
		(int) 22 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India',
		(int) 23 => 'Board',
		(int) 24 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India's',
		(int) 25 => 'Development Officers',
		(int) 26 => 'the Board's Instruction No.'
	),
	'MONEY' => array(
		(int) 0 => '50 per cent',
		(int) 1 => '40 per cent',
		(int) 2 => '50 per cent',
		(int) 3 => '50 per cent'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '2',
		(int) 1 => '50,132',
		(int) 2 => '20,000',
		(int) 3 => '84',
		(int) 4 => '20,000',
		(int) 5 => '334',
		(int) 6 => 'Tribunal,'by',
		(int) 7 => '1',
		(int) 8 => '524',
		(int) 9 => '1',
		(int) 10 => '524',
		(int) 11 => '1',
		(int) 12 => '524',
		(int) 13 => '1'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Jaipur'
	),
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Shiv Raj Bhatia's',
		(int) 1 => 'Shiv Raj Bhatia's',
		(int) 2 => 'Shiv Raj Bhatia's'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '754051',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 15 and 16',
		'appealno' => 'D.B.I.T.R. No. 32 of 1992',
		'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sheo Raj Bhatia',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Shiv Raj Bhatia ). The controversy involved in the present case as well as in the case of Shiv Raj Bhatia is that the incentive bonus received by the Development Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation, whether can fall within the meaning of the words 'salary',perquisites' or 'profits in lieu of salary' and as such is taxable under the head 'Salary' or it is an income from business or profession on which the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of the amount which he spent for procuring the business to earn the incentive bonus and whether the Board's circular No.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Sandeep Bhandawat, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Vineet Kothari, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-05-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' B.R. Arora and; P.C. Jain, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.R. Arora, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, for the assessment year 1985-86, in the case of the assessee, referred the following question of law, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned members of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal were justified in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow 50 per cent, deduction of incentive bonus received by the assessee from the Life Insurance Corporation of India relying on Board's Circular No. 14/9/65-IT (AI) dated September 22, 1965, which, in fact, is applicable to the Life Insurance Corporation agents and not for Development Officers ?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The assessee was working as Development Officer in the office of the Life Insurance Corporation of India at Sirohi. During the assessment year 1985-86, the assessee, apart from the salary and other allowance, received an amount of Rs. 50,132 from the Life Insurance Corporation as incentive bonus. He claimed a deduction of Rs. 20,000, i.e., 40 per cent, of the incentive bonus as the expenses incurred by him to procure the incentive bonus. The assessing authority, i.e., the Income-tax Officer, Sirohi, relying upon the judgment of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, in the case of ITO v. K.M. Baheti (ITA No. 469/JP/ 84) held that the incentive bonus is to be treated as part of the salary and, therefore, only the standard deduction is allowable and the claim of the assessee for deduction on account of additional expenses to the tune of Rs. 20,000 cannot be allowed. Dissatisfied with the order dated January 27, 1986, passed by the Income-tax Officer, Sirohi, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Udaipur Range, Udaipur, who, by his order dated September 14, 1987, confirmed the disallowance made by the Income-tax Officer and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on this ground but partly allowed the appeal on other grounds.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. The Tribunal, by its order dated June 23, 1989, relying upon its earlier judgment given in the case of R. K. Khuteta v. ITO (ITA Nos. 334 and 335/JP/87) reversed the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and allowed the claim of the assessee. Dissatisfied with the order dated June 23, 1989, the Revenue moved an application under Section 256(1) of the Act to refer the questions of law mentioned in the application for the opinion of the High Court and the Tribunal,'by its order dated March 26, 1990, referred the question of lawmentioned in paragraph No. 1 above (page 524) for the opinion of this court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Tribunal allowed the deduction at 50 per cent. on the amount of incentive bonus relying upon the Board's circular.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The material facts, on which the question mentioned in paragraph 1 (page 524) above has to be decided are similar to those in D.B. Income-tax Reference No. 8 of 1992 (CIT v. Shiv Raj Bhatia ). The controversy involved in the present case as well as in the case of Shiv Raj Bhatia is that the incentive bonus received by the Development Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation, whether can fall within the meaning of the words 'salary', 'perquisites' or 'profits in lieu of salary' and as such is taxable under the head 'Salary' or it is an income from business or profession on which the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of the amount which he spent for procuring the business to earn the incentive bonus and whether the Board's circular No. 14/9/65-IT(A-I) dated September 22, 1965, which, in fact, is applicable to LIC agents, is applicable to Development Officers or not. It has been held in CIT v. Shiv Raja Bhatia decided by us today, that the incentive bonus paid to the Development Officer is not a personal gift but is paid as remuneration for his services as employee and, therefore, it forms part of the 'salary'. As the incentive bonus is part of the 'salary' of the assessee and is exigible to tax, the assessee is entitled only to standard deduction permissible under Section 16 of the Act only. It has further been held in Shiv Raj Bhatia's case that the Board's Circular No. 14/9/65-IT(A-I) dated September 22, 1965, which relates to the agents of the Life Insurance Corporation only is not applicable in the case of the Development Officers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The question of law referred for the opinion of this court, mentioned in paragraph 1 (page 524) above, is identical to that which was referred for the opinion of this court in Shiv Raj Bhatia's case and this court, in Shiv Raj Bhatia's case answered the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. For the same reasons, the above quoted question No. 1 is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee in the same manner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Consequently, the reference is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, and it is held that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, was not justified in directing to allow 50 per cent. deduction of the incentive bonus received by the assessee from the Life Insurance Corporation of India, relying on the Board's circular which is applicable only to the Life Insurance Corporation of India's agents and not to the Development Officers and the case of Development Officers is governed by the Board's Instruction No. 1774.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1996)134CTR(Raj)264; [1999]235ITR523(Raj)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Sheo Raj Bhatia',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '754051'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]
Code Context
//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Commissioner of Income tax Vs. Sheo Raj Bhatia Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 256(1',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 256(1',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 16'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'B.R. Arora',
			(int) 1 => 'Jaipur Bench',
			(int) 2 => 'Jaipur',
			(int) 3 => 'Jaipur Bench',
			(int) 4 => 'Jaipur',
			(int) 5 => 'K.M. Baheti',
			(int) 6 => 'Udaipur Range',
			(int) 7 => 'Udaipur',
			(int) 8 => 'Jaipur Bench',
			(int) 9 => 'R. K. Khuteta v. ITO',
			(int) 10 => 'ITA Nos',
			(int) 11 => 'Shiv Raj Bhatia',
			(int) 12 => 'Shiv Raj Bhatia',
			(int) 13 => 'Salary',
			(int) 14 => 'Shiv Raja Bhatia',
			(int) 15 => 'Jaipur Bench',
			(int) 16 => 'Jaipur'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the assessment year 1985-86',
			(int) 1 => '1961',
			(int) 2 => 'September 22, 1965',
			(int) 3 => 'the assessment year 1985-86',
			(int) 4 => 'January 27, 1986',
			(int) 5 => 'September 14, 1987',
			(int) 6 => 'June 23, 1989',
			(int) 7 => 'June 23, 1989',
			(int) 8 => 'March 26, 1990',
			(int) 9 => 'September 22, 1965',
			(int) 10 => 'today',
			(int) 11 => 'September 22, 1965',
			(int) 12 => '1774'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Appellate Tribunal',
			(int) 1 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India',
			(int) 2 => 'Board's Circular No',
			(int) 3 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation',
			(int) 4 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India at Sirohi',
			(int) 5 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation',
			(int) 6 => 'ITO',
			(int) 7 => 'Appellate',
			(int) 8 => 'Appellate',
			(int) 9 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 10 => 'Appellate',
			(int) 11 => 'Revenue',
			(int) 12 => 'the High Court',
			(int) 13 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 14 => 'Board',
			(int) 15 => 'D.B. Income-tax Reference No',
			(int) 16 => 'CIT v.',
			(int) 17 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation',
			(int) 18 => 'Board',
			(int) 19 => 'CIT',
			(int) 20 => 'Board's Circular No',
			(int) 21 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation',
			(int) 22 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India',
			(int) 23 => 'Board',
			(int) 24 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India's',
			(int) 25 => 'Development Officers',
			(int) 26 => 'the Board's Instruction No.'
		),
		'MONEY' => array(
			(int) 0 => '50 per cent',
			(int) 1 => '40 per cent',
			(int) 2 => '50 per cent',
			(int) 3 => '50 per cent'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '2',
			(int) 1 => '50,132',
			(int) 2 => '20,000',
			(int) 3 => '84',
			(int) 4 => '20,000',
			(int) 5 => '334',
			(int) 6 => 'Tribunal,'by',
			(int) 7 => '1',
			(int) 8 => '524',
			(int) 9 => '1',
			(int) 10 => '524',
			(int) 11 => '1',
			(int) 12 => '524',
			(int) 13 => '1'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Jaipur'
		),
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Shiv Raj Bhatia's',
			(int) 1 => 'Shiv Raj Bhatia's',
			(int) 2 => 'Shiv Raj Bhatia's'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '754051',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 15 and 16',
			'appealno' => 'D.B.I.T.R. No. 32 of 1992',
			'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sheo Raj Bhatia',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  Shiv Raj Bhatia ). The controversy involved in the present case as well as in the case of Shiv Raj Bhatia is that the incentive bonus received by the Development Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation, whether can fall within the meaning of the words 'salary',perquisites' or 'profits in lieu of salary' and as such is taxable under the head 'Salary' or it is an income from business or profession on which the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of the amount which he spent for procuring the business to earn the incentive bonus and whether the Board's circular No.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Sandeep Bhandawat, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Vineet Kothari, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-05-01',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' B.R. Arora and; P.C. Jain, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.R. Arora, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, for the assessment year 1985-86, in the case of the assessee, referred the following question of law, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned members of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal were justified in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow 50 per cent, deduction of incentive bonus received by the assessee from the Life Insurance Corporation of India relying on Board's Circular No. 14/9/65-IT (AI) dated September 22, 1965, which, in fact, is applicable to the Life Insurance Corporation agents and not for Development Officers ?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The assessee was working as Development Officer in the office of the Life Insurance Corporation of India at Sirohi. During the assessment year 1985-86, the assessee, apart from the salary and other allowance, received an amount of Rs. 50,132 from the Life Insurance Corporation as incentive bonus. He claimed a deduction of Rs. 20,000, i.e., 40 per cent, of the incentive bonus as the expenses incurred by him to procure the incentive bonus. The assessing authority, i.e., the Income-tax Officer, Sirohi, relying upon the judgment of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, in the case of ITO v. K.M. Baheti (ITA No. 469/JP/ 84) held that the incentive bonus is to be treated as part of the salary and, therefore, only the standard deduction is allowable and the claim of the assessee for deduction on account of additional expenses to the tune of Rs. 20,000 cannot be allowed. Dissatisfied with the order dated January 27, 1986, passed by the Income-tax Officer, Sirohi, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Udaipur Range, Udaipur, who, by his order dated September 14, 1987, confirmed the disallowance made by the Income-tax Officer and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on this ground but partly allowed the appeal on other grounds.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. The Tribunal, by its order dated June 23, 1989, relying upon its earlier judgment given in the case of R. K. Khuteta v. ITO (ITA Nos. 334 and 335/JP/87) reversed the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and allowed the claim of the assessee. Dissatisfied with the order dated June 23, 1989, the Revenue moved an application under Section 256(1) of the Act to refer the questions of law mentioned in the application for the opinion of the High Court and the Tribunal,'by its order dated March 26, 1990, referred the question of lawmentioned in paragraph No. 1 above (page 524) for the opinion of this court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Tribunal allowed the deduction at 50 per cent. on the amount of incentive bonus relying upon the Board's circular.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The material facts, on which the question mentioned in paragraph 1 (page 524) above has to be decided are similar to those in D.B. Income-tax Reference No. 8 of 1992 (CIT v. Shiv Raj Bhatia ). The controversy involved in the present case as well as in the case of Shiv Raj Bhatia is that the incentive bonus received by the Development Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation, whether can fall within the meaning of the words 'salary', 'perquisites' or 'profits in lieu of salary' and as such is taxable under the head 'Salary' or it is an income from business or profession on which the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of the amount which he spent for procuring the business to earn the incentive bonus and whether the Board's circular No. 14/9/65-IT(A-I) dated September 22, 1965, which, in fact, is applicable to LIC agents, is applicable to Development Officers or not. It has been held in CIT v. Shiv Raja Bhatia decided by us today, that the incentive bonus paid to the Development Officer is not a personal gift but is paid as remuneration for his services as employee and, therefore, it forms part of the 'salary'. As the incentive bonus is part of the 'salary' of the assessee and is exigible to tax, the assessee is entitled only to standard deduction permissible under Section 16 of the Act only. It has further been held in Shiv Raj Bhatia's case that the Board's Circular No. 14/9/65-IT(A-I) dated September 22, 1965, which relates to the agents of the Life Insurance Corporation only is not applicable in the case of the Development Officers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The question of law referred for the opinion of this court, mentioned in paragraph 1 (page 524) above, is identical to that which was referred for the opinion of this court in Shiv Raj Bhatia's case and this court, in Shiv Raj Bhatia's case answered the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. For the same reasons, the above quoted question No. 1 is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee in the same manner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Consequently, the reference is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, and it is held that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, was not justified in directing to allow 50 per cent. deduction of the incentive bonus received by the assessee from the Life Insurance Corporation of India, relying on the Board's circular which is applicable only to the Life Insurance Corporation of India's agents and not to the Development Officers and the case of Development Officers is governed by the Board's Instruction No. 1774.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1996)134CTR(Raj)264; [1999]235ITR523(Raj)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Sheo Raj Bhatia',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '754051'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Commissioner of Income tax Vs. Sheo Raj Bhatia Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 256(1',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 256(1',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 16'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'B.R. Arora',
		(int) 1 => 'Jaipur Bench',
		(int) 2 => 'Jaipur',
		(int) 3 => 'Jaipur Bench',
		(int) 4 => 'Jaipur',
		(int) 5 => 'K.M. Baheti',
		(int) 6 => 'Udaipur Range',
		(int) 7 => 'Udaipur',
		(int) 8 => 'Jaipur Bench',
		(int) 9 => 'R. K. Khuteta v. ITO',
		(int) 10 => 'ITA Nos',
		(int) 11 => 'Shiv Raj Bhatia',
		(int) 12 => 'Shiv Raj Bhatia',
		(int) 13 => 'Salary',
		(int) 14 => 'Shiv Raja Bhatia',
		(int) 15 => 'Jaipur Bench',
		(int) 16 => 'Jaipur'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the assessment year 1985-86',
		(int) 1 => '1961',
		(int) 2 => 'September 22, 1965',
		(int) 3 => 'the assessment year 1985-86',
		(int) 4 => 'January 27, 1986',
		(int) 5 => 'September 14, 1987',
		(int) 6 => 'June 23, 1989',
		(int) 7 => 'June 23, 1989',
		(int) 8 => 'March 26, 1990',
		(int) 9 => 'September 22, 1965',
		(int) 10 => 'today',
		(int) 11 => 'September 22, 1965',
		(int) 12 => '1774'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Appellate Tribunal',
		(int) 1 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India',
		(int) 2 => 'Board's Circular No',
		(int) 3 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation',
		(int) 4 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India at Sirohi',
		(int) 5 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation',
		(int) 6 => 'ITO',
		(int) 7 => 'Appellate',
		(int) 8 => 'Appellate',
		(int) 9 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 10 => 'Appellate',
		(int) 11 => 'Revenue',
		(int) 12 => 'the High Court',
		(int) 13 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 14 => 'Board',
		(int) 15 => 'D.B. Income-tax Reference No',
		(int) 16 => 'CIT v.',
		(int) 17 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation',
		(int) 18 => 'Board',
		(int) 19 => 'CIT',
		(int) 20 => 'Board's Circular No',
		(int) 21 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation',
		(int) 22 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India',
		(int) 23 => 'Board',
		(int) 24 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India's',
		(int) 25 => 'Development Officers',
		(int) 26 => 'the Board's Instruction No.'
	),
	'MONEY' => array(
		(int) 0 => '50 per cent',
		(int) 1 => '40 per cent',
		(int) 2 => '50 per cent',
		(int) 3 => '50 per cent'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '2',
		(int) 1 => '50,132',
		(int) 2 => '20,000',
		(int) 3 => '84',
		(int) 4 => '20,000',
		(int) 5 => '334',
		(int) 6 => 'Tribunal,'by',
		(int) 7 => '1',
		(int) 8 => '524',
		(int) 9 => '1',
		(int) 10 => '524',
		(int) 11 => '1',
		(int) 12 => '524',
		(int) 13 => '1'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Jaipur'
	),
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Shiv Raj Bhatia's',
		(int) 1 => 'Shiv Raj Bhatia's',
		(int) 2 => 'Shiv Raj Bhatia's'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '754051',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 15 and 16',
		'appealno' => 'D.B.I.T.R. No. 32 of 1992',
		'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sheo Raj Bhatia',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  Shiv Raj Bhatia ). The controversy involved in the present case as well as in the case of Shiv Raj Bhatia is that the incentive bonus received by the Development Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation, whether can fall within the meaning of the words 'salary',perquisites' or 'profits in lieu of salary' and as such is taxable under the head 'Salary' or it is an income from business or profession on which the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of the amount which he spent for procuring the business to earn the incentive bonus and whether the Board's circular No.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Sandeep Bhandawat, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Vineet Kothari, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-05-01',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' B.R. Arora and; P.C. Jain, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.R. Arora, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, for the assessment year 1985-86, in the case of the assessee, referred the following question of law, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned members of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal were justified in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow 50 per cent, deduction of incentive bonus received by the assessee from the Life Insurance Corporation of India relying on Board's Circular No. 14/9/65-IT (AI) dated September 22, 1965, which, in fact, is applicable to the Life Insurance Corporation agents and not for Development Officers ?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The assessee was working as Development Officer in the office of the Life Insurance Corporation of India at Sirohi. During the assessment year 1985-86, the assessee, apart from the salary and other allowance, received an amount of Rs. 50,132 from the Life Insurance Corporation as incentive bonus. He claimed a deduction of Rs. 20,000, i.e., 40 per cent, of the incentive bonus as the expenses incurred by him to procure the incentive bonus. The assessing authority, i.e., the Income-tax Officer, Sirohi, relying upon the judgment of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, in the case of ITO v. K.M. Baheti (ITA No. 469/JP/ 84) held that the incentive bonus is to be treated as part of the salary and, therefore, only the standard deduction is allowable and the claim of the assessee for deduction on account of additional expenses to the tune of Rs. 20,000 cannot be allowed. Dissatisfied with the order dated January 27, 1986, passed by the Income-tax Officer, Sirohi, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Udaipur Range, Udaipur, who, by his order dated September 14, 1987, confirmed the disallowance made by the Income-tax Officer and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on this ground but partly allowed the appeal on other grounds.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. The Tribunal, by its order dated June 23, 1989, relying upon its earlier judgment given in the case of R. K. Khuteta v. ITO (ITA Nos. 334 and 335/JP/87) reversed the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and allowed the claim of the assessee. Dissatisfied with the order dated June 23, 1989, the Revenue moved an application under Section 256(1) of the Act to refer the questions of law mentioned in the application for the opinion of the High Court and the Tribunal,'by its order dated March 26, 1990, referred the question of lawmentioned in paragraph No. 1 above (page 524) for the opinion of this court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Tribunal allowed the deduction at 50 per cent. on the amount of incentive bonus relying upon the Board's circular.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The material facts, on which the question mentioned in paragraph 1 (page 524) above has to be decided are similar to those in D.B. Income-tax Reference No. 8 of 1992 (CIT v. Shiv Raj Bhatia ). The controversy involved in the present case as well as in the case of Shiv Raj Bhatia is that the incentive bonus received by the Development Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation, whether can fall within the meaning of the words 'salary', 'perquisites' or 'profits in lieu of salary' and as such is taxable under the head 'Salary' or it is an income from business or profession on which the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of the amount which he spent for procuring the business to earn the incentive bonus and whether the Board's circular No. 14/9/65-IT(A-I) dated September 22, 1965, which, in fact, is applicable to LIC agents, is applicable to Development Officers or not. It has been held in CIT v. Shiv Raja Bhatia decided by us today, that the incentive bonus paid to the Development Officer is not a personal gift but is paid as remuneration for his services as employee and, therefore, it forms part of the 'salary'. As the incentive bonus is part of the 'salary' of the assessee and is exigible to tax, the assessee is entitled only to standard deduction permissible under Section 16 of the Act only. It has further been held in Shiv Raj Bhatia's case that the Board's Circular No. 14/9/65-IT(A-I) dated September 22, 1965, which relates to the agents of the Life Insurance Corporation only is not applicable in the case of the Development Officers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The question of law referred for the opinion of this court, mentioned in paragraph 1 (page 524) above, is identical to that which was referred for the opinion of this court in Shiv Raj Bhatia's case and this court, in Shiv Raj Bhatia's case answered the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. For the same reasons, the above quoted question No. 1 is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee in the same manner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Consequently, the reference is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, and it is held that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, was not justified in directing to allow 50 per cent. deduction of the incentive bonus received by the assessee from the Life Insurance Corporation of India, relying on the Board's circular which is applicable only to the Life Insurance Corporation of India's agents and not to the Development Officers and the case of Development Officers is governed by the Board's Instruction No. 1774.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1996)134CTR(Raj)264; [1999]235ITR523(Raj)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Sheo Raj Bhatia',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '754051'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

LAW: Section 256(1, Section 256(1, Section 16

PERSON: B.R. Arora, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, K.M. Baheti, Udaipur Range, Udaipur, Jaipur Bench, R. K. Khuteta v. ITO, ITA Nos, Shiv Raj Bhatia, Shiv Raj Bhatia, Salary, Shiv Raja Bhatia, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur

NORP: J.1

DATE: the assessment year 1985-86, 1961, September 22, 1965, the assessment year 1985-86, January 27, 1986, September 14, 1987, June 23, 1989, June 23, 1989, March 26, 1990, September 22, 1965, today, September 22, 1965, 1774

ORG: Appellate Tribunal, the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Board's Circular No, the Life Insurance Corporation, the Life Insurance Corporation of India at Sirohi, the Life Insurance Corporation, ITO, Appellate, Appellate, Tribunal, Appellate, Revenue, the High Court, Tribunal, Board, D.B. Income-tax Reference No, CIT v., the Life Insurance Corporation, Board, CIT, Board's Circular No, the Life Insurance Corporation, the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Board, the Life Insurance Corporation of India's, Development Officers, the Board's Instruction No.

MONEY: 50 per cent, 40 per cent, 50 per cent, 50 per cent

CARDINAL: 2, 50,132, 20,000, 84, 20,000, 334, Tribunal,'by, 1, 524, 1, 524, 1, 524, 1

GPE: Jaipur

FAC: Shiv Raj Bhatia's, Shiv Raj Bhatia's, Shiv Raj Bhatia's