TAX CASE No.1 OF 1998
(Against the statement of the case in R.A.No. 14 (Pat)/96 (arising out of I.T.A. No. 759
(PAT) / 1993), Asstt. Year- 1992-1993, in the case of Shri Shailendra Kumar Shail, D.O.,
L.I.C., Branch-1, Muzaffarpur.)
Shailendra Kumar Shail, Development Officer, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch
No.-1, Muzaffarpur------------------------------------(Applicant)
Versus
Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bihar, Patna.----------------------------------(Respondent)
For the Appellant : 1. Mr. Harshwardhan Prasad, Sr. Standing Counsel.
2. Mrs. Archana Sinha, Jr. Standing Counsel.
TAX CASE No. 5 OF 1998
(Against the statement of the case in R.A. Nos. 22 & 23 (Pat) / 1997 (arising out of ITA
Nos. 343 & 526 (P) /93) Asstt. Years 90-91 & 91-92 in the case of Shri Motilal Jain, D.O.,
L.I.C., Exhibition Road, Patna)
Shri Moti Lal Jain, Development Officer, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Exhibition
Road, Patna-----------------------------------(Applicant)
Versus
Commmissioner of Iincome-tax, patna, Bihar----------------------------------(Respondent)
TAX CASE No. 6 OF 1998
Shri Moti Lal Jain, Development Officer, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Exhibition
Road, Patna- ------------------------------------(Appellant)
Versus
Commmissioner of Iincome-tax, patna, Bihar ----------------------------------(Respondent)
For the Appellant : 1. Mr. Harshwardhan Prasad, Sr. Standing Counsel.
2. Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, Jr. Standing Counsel.
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRAMAULI KUMAR PRASAD
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBASH CHANDRA JHA
------------------
Prasad & The Patna Bench of the Income Tax Tribunal
Jha, J.J.
has referred the following question for our
opinion:-
1. “Whether under the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the
Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was
justified in holding that incentive
bonus earned by the assessee, a
development officer of LIC is salary
-2-as defined in Section 17 of the Act
keeping in view the terms and
conditions, Rules and regulation of
service and is not professional
income?”
2. “Whether under the facts and in the
circumstances of the case the Income-
tax Appellate Tribunal was justified
in holding that the assessee is not
entitled to deduction to the extent
of 40% as expenditure for earning
such incentive bonus?”
Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner.
However, Mrs. Archana Sinha appearing on behalf of
the revenue submits that the questions sent for our
opinion have already been answered by a Division
Bench of this Court in Tax Case No. 13 of 1991
(Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar, Patna Vs. Shri
Ramji Prasad) disposed of on 7th February, 2008.
These references are answered in the same
terms.
They are accordingly disposed of.
Let a copy of our opinion be forwarded to
the Patna Bench of the Income-tax Appellate
Tribunal.
(Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.)
Patna High (Subash Chandra Jha, J.)
Court, the 20th
of Oct., 2008
NAFR/AFR Sanjeet
-3-