Rc/39/1996 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax.hyd v. S.satyanarayana Reddy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH ATHYDERABADMONDAY THE TWENTYSECOND DAY OF FEBRUARYTWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSICE B. PRAKASH RAOAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE REDDY KANTHA RAO REFERRED CASE No. 3 9OF 1996 {under section 256 (1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 in RA.Nos. 120 and 121/Hyd/1995, dated 19-6-1995Andhra Pradesh of ITAT Hyderabad Bench ‘B’} Between: The Commissioner of Income-taxAndhra Pradesh-II, Hyderabad. …. Petitioner V/s. S. Satyanarayana ReddyHanamkonda. …. Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Sri S.R. Ashok Senior Counsel Counsel for the Respondent: None appeared THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAOAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE REDDY KANTHA RAO REFERRED CASE No. 3 9of 1996 J U D G M E N T: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) RC.No. 39 of 1996 is referred to this Court by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, A.P., Hyderabad under section 256 (1) of theIndian Income Tax Act, 1961 in RA.Nos. 120 and 121/Hyd/1995,dated 19-6-1995 Andhra Pradesh of ITAT Hyderabad Bench ‘B’ onits file for decision on the following question of law viz., “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was justified in law in holding that theassessee a salaried employee of LIC was entitled todeduction of 40% on the incentive bonus received from hisemployee ?” Heard the learned standing counsel for Income-tax, Sri S.R. Ashok for the petitioner. Though served none appeared forthe respondent herein. 2. The question which has been referred to in regard to theentitlement of the deduction of 40% incentive bonus earned from theLife Insurance Corporation of India, which is now represented acrossthe bar that the same is no longer res integra in view of the decisionof this Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V/s. B.CHINNAIAH AND ORS[[1]]., 214 ITR-368, wherein the DivisionBench of this Court held that under section 10 (14) of the IndianIncome Tax Act, 1961 such deduction is not permissible and theremust be a notification by the Central Government specifying theextent to which the expenses are allowable. Following the saiddecision, the question referred to is answered in favour of therespondent. 3. Accordingly, RC.No. 39 of 1996 is disposed of. No costs. __________________________ JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO ______________________________________ JUSTICE REDDY KANTHA RAO 22-02-2010.I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO ANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE REDDY KANTHA RAO REFERRED CASE No. 3 9 OF 1996 Judgment of the Division Bench delivered bythe Hon'ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) Circulation Entry No. 129Date: 22-02-2010COMPUTER No. 43Court Master: I s L [1]) ITR-1995, Volume-214 Page No. 468