Commissioner Of Income Tax,Visakhapatnam 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.92 OF 1996 DT.16.06.2010 Between: Shri K. Pulla Rao, Avanigadda Commissioner of Income Tax,Visakhapatnam 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) Whetheron the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT isjustified in holding that disallowance of the assessee’s claim fordeduction of 40% of the incentive bonus is a prima facieadjustment as contemplated under Section 143(1)(a) of theI.T.Act?, (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the ITAT is justified in upholding the intimation under Section143(1)(a) of the IT Act? and (3) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the ITAT is justified in upholding thedisallowance of the expenditure claimed against the incentivebonus received by the assessee? Now, it is reported by the learned standing counsels that theissue involved in this R.C. is squarely covered by the decision ofthis Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v. B.CHINNAIAH AND OTHERS[[1]], which was answered in favour ofthe Revenue. 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.,