Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Visakhapatnam v. Sri Y.r.v.venkateswara Rao,Pithapuram

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.33 OF 2001 DT.16.06.2010 Between: Commissioner of Income-tax,Visakhapatnam Vs. ……..Applicant Sri Y.R.V.Venkateswara Rao,Pithapuram. ……..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 question referred by the Tribunal reads as: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the disallowance of40% of the incentive bonus claimed by the assessee as adeduction which he was not entitled to as per the legal position laiddown by this Court in 214 ITR 358 cannot be disallowed underclause(iii) of the first proviso to Section 143(1)(a) while finalisingthe return under the said section for the year 1990-91?” Now, it is reported by the learned standing counsel 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 R.C. is answered. Noorder as to costs. ________________ B.PRAKASH RAO J., ________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN J., Dt.16.06.2010 Rns [1]ITR VOL.214, PAGE 368