A.p.i., Hyderabad v. Sri Ch. Anantharamulu

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESHRANGANATHAN PER THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO REFERRED CASE NO.71 OF 2001 DT.16.06.2010 Between: Commissioner of Income-tax, A.P.I., Hyderabad Vs. Sri Ch. Anantharamulu, Miryalaguda ……..Applicant ……..Respondent. O R D E R:(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard Sri S.R.Ashok and V.R.Badri, learnedStanding Counsels appearing for the applicant. Noneappeared for the respondent though served. The question referred by the Tribunal reads as (1)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that 40%of the incentive bonus should be allowed as anexpenditure in addition to the standard deduction undersection 16(i) and more so when the expenditure involved,if any, in travelling conveyance allowance conveyanceand additional conveyance allowance provided by theemployer and exempted under Section 10(14) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961? And (2) Whether on the facts andin the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is correct in lawin holding that the order of the CIT passed under Section263 was not prejudicial to the interest of Revenue? Now, it is reported by the learned standing counsel that the issue involved in this R.C. is squarely covered bythe decision of this Court in COMMISSIONER OFINCOME-TAX v. B. CHINNAIAH AND OTHERS[[1]], whichwas answered in favour of the Revenue. In view of the aforesaid decision, this Referred Caseis also answered. No order as to costs. ________________ B.PRAKASH RAO J., Dt.16.06.2010Rns ________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN J., [1]ITR VOL.214, PAGE 368