Commissioner Of Income-Tax,A.p.ii, Hyderabad v. O R D E R

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.67 OF 1997 DT.16.06.2010 Between: V.V.V.Satyanarayana, Bhadrachalam. Commissioner of Income-tax,A.P.II, Hyderabad Vs. ……..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 respondent. None appeared for theapplicant. The questions referred by the Tribunal read as: (1) Whether onthe facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal isjustified in holding that the expenditure claimed from the incentivebonus is not allowable as a deduction under Section 10(14) of theI.T.Act?, (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,the Hon’ble Tribunal is justified in holding no expenditure other thanthe allowance under Section 16(i) is allowable from the incomereceived by the assessee? and (3) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal is justified inrestricting the allowance of additional conveyance allowance to theextent certified by the employer as against the entire sum spent by heassessee? Now, it is reported by the learned standing counsels that theissue involved in this Referred Case is squarely covered by thedecision of this Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v. B.CHINNAIAH AND OTHERS[[1]], which was answered in favour of theRevenue. In view of the aforesaid decision, this Referred Case isanswered. No order as to costs. ________________ B.PRAKASH RAO J., Dt.16.06.2010Rns [1]ITR VOL.214, PAGE 368 ________________________RAMESH RANGANATHAN J.,