Income Tax Reference v. Shri V. P. Heda, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur
High Court
24 Aug 2010 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · testcase
Parties
Income Tax Reference v. Shri V. P. Heda, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur
Date of order
24 Aug 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Income Tax Reference v. Shri V. P. Heda, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur, the High Court (2010) decided the matter.
Decision: Reference is disposed of accordingly.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
INCOME TAX REFERENCE No.20 of 2008(The Commissioner of Income Tax (Vidarbha), Nagpur ..vs.. Shri V. P. Heda, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda ofCoram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.S. Jaiswal, Advocate for the applicant.
CORAM:- J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ.DATED :- 24th AUGUST, 2010
1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur has forwarded the statement of case raising the following questions for the opinion of this Court.
“a.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Income from incentive bonus does not form part of salary ?
b.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the income from incentive bonus is income from profession and allowing expenses to the tune of 40% of incentive bonus ?
c.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in applying
the ratio as laid down by the Bombay High Court in the decision reported at 197 ITR 717 ?”
2.Shri Kalmegh, learned Advocate had appeared on behalf of one of the legal heirs in the civil application states that he has no instructions to appear in the matter.
3.The questions raised in this reference are covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Gopal Krishna Suri reported in (2001) 248 ITR 819 (Bom). In the result, the questions raised by the Tribunal are answered in the negative and in favour of the revenue.
Reference is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
JUDGEJUDGE
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.