Commissioner Of Income-Tax,A.p.i., Hyderabad v. Sri Ch. Krishnanandam, Nalgonda

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN PER THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO R.C.NO.69 OF 2001 DT.16.06.2010 Between: Commissioner of Income-tax,A.P.I., Hyderabad Vs. Sri Ch. Krishnanandam, Nalgonda ……..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, learned StandingCounsels appearing for the applicant. None appeared for therespondent though served. The questions referred by the Tribunal read as (1) Whether onthe facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasjustified in holding that 40% of the incentive bonus should be allowedas an expenditure in addition to the standard deduction under Section16(i) and more so when the expenditure involved. If any, in travellingis covered by the conveyance and additional conveyance allowanceprovided by the employer and exempted under Section 10(14) of theIncome-tax Act, 1961? And (2) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the ITAT is correct in law in holding that theorder of the CIT passed under Section 263 was not prejudicial to theinterest of Revenue?” Now, it is reported by the learned standing counsel that theissue involved in this R.C. is squarely covered by the decision of thisCourt in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v. B. CHINNAIAH ANDOTHERS[[1]], which was answered in favour of the Revenue. In view of the aforesaid decision, this R.C. is answered. Noorder as to costs. ________________ B.PRAKASH RAO J., ________________________ Dt.16.06.2010Rns [1]ITR VOL.214, PAGE 368 RAMESH RANGANATHAN J.,