{"id":101,"date":"2010-09-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-i-t-bihar-patna-vs-moti-lal-jaindev-officerlic-on-28-september-2010"},"modified":"2016-11-06T06:31:02","modified_gmt":"2016-11-06T01:01:02","slug":"c-i-t-bihar-patna-vs-moti-lal-jaindev-officerlic-on-28-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-i-t-bihar-patna-vs-moti-lal-jaindev-officerlic-on-28-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"C.I.T. Bihar Patna vs Moti Lal Jain,Dev.Officer,Lic on 28 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court – Orders<\/div>\n
C.I.T. Bihar Patna vs Moti Lal Jain,Dev.Officer,Lic on 28 September, 2010<\/div>\n
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA\n                                    Tax Case No.30 of 1990\n                  ============================================\n                  The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar-I, Patna...Petitioner\n                                         Versus\n                  Motilal Jain, Development Officer, L.I.C. of India, Patna\n                                                 ..................Opposite Party\n\n                  APPEARANCE\n\n                       For the Petitioner:   Mrs. Archana Sinha, Advocate &\n                                             Mr. Harshwardhan Prasad, Advocate\n\n                       For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Kumar Rastogi, Advocate &\n                                            Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Advocate\n\n                  CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE\n                                  And\n                         HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN\n\n                  ORAL ORDER<\/pre>\n
                  (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)<\/p>\n
3.   28\/09\/2010             This reference under section 256(2) of the
\n                  Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the
\n                  Act’) arises from the judgment and order dated 31st May
\n                  1990 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in
\n                  R.A. No.50(Patna)\/1989, arising out of Income Tax
\n                  Appeal No. 267 (Pat)\/1987, relating to the Assessment
\n                  Year 1983-84.\n<\/p>\n
                            The     respondent-assessee,      a   Development
\n                  Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation of India
\n                  (hereinafter referred to as `the Corporation’) had, in the
\n                  previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 1983-84,
\n                  received incentive bonus of Rs.80,622.20 paise from the
\n                  Corporation. Out of the said amount of incentive bonus,
\n                  the assessee claimed deduction of 40% as expenses.\n<\/p>\n
                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
According to the assessee, the incentive bonus was an
\n“income from profession” and was not a part of the
\n“salary”. The Assessing Officer did not accept the claim
\nof the assessee. Order of the Assessing Officer was set
\naside by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of
\nIncome tax. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held
\nthat the amount of incentive bonus was an “income from
\nprofession”. The assessee was, therefore, in consonance
\nwith the Board’s circular no. 1774 dated 29th September
\n1987 entitled to a deduction of 40% claimed by him. The
\nchallenge to the appellate order before the Income Tax
\nAppellate Tribunal failed.    The tribunal held that the
\nincentive bonus cannot be treated as a part of salary and
\nthat it is a professional income. The tribunal directed the
\nAssessing Officer to allow 40% deduction from the
\nincentive bonus.\n<\/p>\n
           The present Reference is made at the instance
\nof the Revenue for resolution of the following questions
\nof law:-\n<\/p>\n
     \"1. Whether on the facts             and in the\n     circumstances of the case,       the Income-tax\n<\/pre>\n
     Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding
\n     that the incentive        bonus earned by an
\n     assessee was not covered by salary and is in
\n     nature of commission earned               by the
\n     Insurance Agent against which expenses to
\n     the extent of 40% were allowable in view of
\n     Board’s Circular        no.1774 dated 20.9.1987
\n     communicated vide F.no.200\/172\/84\/IT (A.I.)
\n                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
     dated 14.10.1987?\n<\/p>\n
     2.   Whether on         the facts   and in the
\n     circumstances of the case the assessee is
\n     entitle to claim 40% as expenses from
\n     incentive bonus?”\n<\/p>\n
          Learned Advocate Mrs Archana Sinha has
\nappeared for the department. She has submitted that the
\nabove-referred questions are no more res integra. This
\ncourt (Coram: Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J, as he then
\nwas, and Jayanandan Singh, J.) has decided the issue in
\nthe matter of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar,
\nPatna Vs. Ramjee Prasad ( Tax Case No.13 of 1991).
\nBy the judgment and order dated 7th February 2008, this
\ncourt has held as under:-\n<\/p>\n
     “The incentive bonus given to the assessee was
\n     not granted by the Life Insurance Corporation
\n     of India for the purposes as set out in Section
\n     10(14) of the Act.        Once it is held so the
\n     assessee cannot claim deduction at the rate of
\n     40% taking shelter behind Section 10(14) of
\n     the Act.       We are of the opinion that no
\n     provision other than Section 10(14) of the Act
\n     exists   for       allowing   deduction   towards
\n     expenditure of the nature claimed by the
\n     assessee. Incentive bonus or part thereof is not
\n     reimbursement of expenditure by the employer
\n     to qualify for deduction under Section 10(14)
\n     of the Act. We are of the opinion that
\n                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
     expenditure under Section 10(14) of the Act
\n     can be allowed only when it is granted to meet
\n     expenses       wholly     and     exclusively      in
\n     performance of the duty and that too to the
\n     extent such expenses are actually incurred for
\n     that purpose.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              Learned Advocate Mr Ajay Kumar Rastogi
\nhas appeared for the assessee. At the outset, he has
\nchallenged the maintainability of the present Reference.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
He has submitted that the Government of India has taken
\na conscious decision under its communication dated 27th
\nMarch 2000 not to file appeal before the High Court
\nunless the tax effect exceeds Rs. 2 lakhs. The said
\ninstruction   has   since    been   modified.   Under    the
\ncommunication dated 24th October 2005, the above-
\nreferred monetary limit of Rs. 2 lakhs has been raised to
\nRs. 4 lakhs. He has submitted that the aforesaid
\ninstruction would apply not only to the appeals to be filed
\nthereafter but also to the appeals\/references pending on
\nthe date. He has submitted that as in the present case the
\ntax effect is less than the aforesaid monetary limit, the
\ncase requires to be dismissed. In support, he has relied
\nupon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the
\nmatter of Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Pithwa
\nEngg. Works (276 ITR 519).\n<\/p>\n
              In the above-referred matter, the Bombay
\nHigh Court relied upon the instruction dated 27th March
\n2000 in an Income Tax Reference filed in the year 1988.
\nThe Bombay High Court held,
\n                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
        “The above instructions dated March 27,
\n      2000 reflect the policy decision taken by the
\n      Board not to raise questions of law where the
\n      tax effect is less than the amount prescribed in
\n      the above circular with a view to reduce
\n      litigations before the High Courts and the
\n      Supreme Court. The said circular is binding
\n      on the Revenue though learned counsel tried
\n      to contend that the said circular is not
\n      applicable to the old referred cases. However,
\n      he could not take his submission to a logical
\n      end.\n<\/p>\n
         One fails to understand how the Revenue
\n      can contend that so far as new cases are
\n      concerned, the circular issued by the Board is
\n      binding on them and in compliance with the
\n      said instructions, they do not file references if
\n      the tax effect is less than Rs. 2 lakhs. But the
\n      same approach is not adopted with respect to
\n      the old referred cases even if the tax effect is
\n      less than Rs. 2 lakhs. In our view, there is no
\n      logic behind this approach.”\n<\/p>\n
             We are unable to agree with the opinion of
\nthe Bombay High Court. The Government of India has
\ndecided that appeals would be filed only in cases where
\nthe tax effect exceeded the revised monetary limit given
\nthereunder, that necessarily means that those instructions
\nwould apply to the appeals\/references which were yet to
\nbe filed or, in other words, the appeals\/references filed
\n                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
after 27th March 2000. In our opinion, the High Court
\ncannot    refuse       to   consider   and   decide   the
\nappeals\/references which are already filed and pending
\nbefore the High Court for decision taking shelter under
\nthe above-referred instruction dated 27th March 2000 or
\nany other instruction of similar nature.\n<\/p>\n
           Mr Rastogi has next submitted that the above-
\nreferred judgment in the matter of Ramjee Prasad is per
\nincuriam the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the
\nmatter of Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Kiranbhai
\nH. Shelat & Anr. (235 ITR 635). He has submitted that
\nthe Gujarat High Court has in no uncertain terms held
\nthat the Development Officers of the Corporation are
\nentitled to deduct actual expenses incurred by them to the
\nmaximum of 30% from the amount of the incentive
\nbonus received by them from the Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
           In the matter of Ramjee Prasad, identical
\nquestion of law was referred to this Court. This Court
\nfollowed the judgments of the Full Bench of the
\nKarnataka High Court in the matter of Commissioner of
\nIncome-Tax Vs. M.D. Patil [1998 (220) ITR 71] and of
\nthe Madhya Pradesh High Court in the cases of
\nCommissioner of Income-Tax Vs. A.K. Ghosh [(2003)
\n263 ITR 536] and of Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs.
\nGurudeo Singh Jaggi [(2004) 267 ITR 763]. The
\naforesaid High Courts have taken a consistent view that
\nthe amount of incentive bonus received by the
\nDevelopment Officers of the Corporation is not referable
\nto and is not exempt under Section 10(14) of the Act, but
\n                   7<\/span><\/p>\n
is a `salary’ within the meaning of Section 17(1)(iv) of
\nthe Act. The only deduction admissible will be the
\nstandard deduction available under Section 16 of the Act.
\nThe appeal preferred against the above-referred judgment
\nof the High Court of Madhya Pradesh was not entertained
\nby the Hon’ble Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n
          The Gujarat High Court also has the same
\nview insofar as Section 10(14) of the Act is concerned. It
\nhas been held that the incentive bonus is a salary within
\nthe meaning of Section 17(1)(iv) of the Act. It further
\nheld, “the Development Officer can still demonstrate
\nthat he was required to incur the expenditure as a
\npart of his duty to enable himself to realize the
\nproceeds of the Incentive bonus. Thus, for working
\nout the amount of profit in addition to salary, there
\nwould be deduction from the gross Incentive bonus,
\nexpenses properly incurred in realizing it. This
\ndeduction would be warranted to reach the profit
\nelement cannot be denied to the assessee-employee on
\nthe ground that the statutory deductions are already
\nprovided in Section 16.”\n<\/p>\n
          In view of the aforesaid discussion, it was
\ndecided that the Development Officer of the Corporation
\nwas entitled to deduction of the actual expenses incurred
\nby him up to a maximum limit of 30% of the amount and
\nthat the net amount after such deduction is the salary
\nincome.\n<\/p>\n
          We may first note that the judgment of the
\nGujarat High Court is not a binding precedent. The
\n                   8<\/span><\/p>\n
judgment in the matter of Ramjee Prasad (supra) cannot
\nbe said to be per incuriam as submitted by Mr Rastogi.
\nFurther the reliance placed on the Board’s circular no.
\n1774 dated 29th September 1987 was also uncalled for.
\nThe said circular no. 1774 is placed before us. It is
\napparent that it contains a clarification of its earlier
\ncircular no. 1546 dated 6th January 1984. It only clarifies
\nthat the earlier instruction was issued in respect of the
\ncommission earned by the insurance agents and that it
\ndid not apply to the Development Officers of the
\nCorporation, who are full time employees of the
\nCorporation and are in receipt of regular salary. It has
\nbeen reiterated that “the payment received by the
\nDevelopment Officers as incentive bonus or bonus
\ncommission (or by any other name) is for the work
\ndone for the employer. It is in lieu of or in addition to
\nsalary and forms part of salary by virtue of Section
\n17(1)(iv) of the Act.” In our opinion, the tribunal and the
\nappellate authority below both were wrong in holding
\nthat the incentive bonus received by the Development
\nOfficer is an “income from profession” and that the
\nassessee was entitled to 40% deduction as expenses.\n<\/p>\n
          In view of the above binding precedent, we
\nanswer Question nos. 1 & 2 in favour of the Revenue and
\nagainst the assessee. We hold that the incentive bonus
\nearned by the assessee was the salary within the meaning
\nof Section 17(1)(iv) of the Act. The assessee was,
\ntherefore, not entitled to 40% deduction as expenses
\nfrom the amount of incentive bonus as claimed by him.\n<\/p>\n
                           9<\/span><\/p>\n
                  In the present case, we are not called upon to
\n        consider whether or not the assessee was entitled to
\n        deduction of actual amount of expenses incurred by him
\n        to a maximum of 30% as the assessee has not claimed
\n        any deduction as expenses actually incurred by him to
\n        earn incentive bonus.\n<\/p>\n
                  The reference is answered in the above terms.
\n        The parties will bear their own cost.\n<\/p>\n
                                ( R. M. Doshit, CJ.)<\/p>\n
                                  ( Jyoti Saran, J.)<\/p>\n
AFR\/-\n<\/p>\n
Dilip\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court – Orders C.I.T. Bihar Patna vs Moti Lal Jain,Dev.Officer,Lic on 28 September, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Tax Case No.30 of 1990 ============================================ The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar-I, Patna…Petitioner Versus Motilal Jain, Development Officer, L.I.C. of India, Patna ………………Opposite Party APPEARANCE For the Petitioner: Mrs. Archana Sinha, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-101","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court-orders"],"yoast_head":"\nC.I.T. Bihar Patna vs Moti Lal Jain,Dev.Officer,Lic on 28 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-i-t-bihar-patna-vs-moti-lal-jaindev-officerlic-on-28-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"C.I.T. Bihar Patna vs Moti Lal Jain,Dev.Officer,Lic on 28 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-i-t-bihar-patna-vs-moti-lal-jaindev-officerlic-on-28-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-06T01:01:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-i-t-bihar-patna-vs-moti-lal-jaindev-officerlic-on-28-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-i-t-bihar-patna-vs-moti-lal-jaindev-officerlic-on-28-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"C.I.T. Bihar Patna vs Moti Lal Jain,Dev.Officer,Lic on 28 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-06T01:01:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-i-t-bihar-patna-vs-moti-lal-jaindev-officerlic-on-28-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1831,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court - Orders\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-i-t-bihar-patna-vs-moti-lal-jaindev-officerlic-on-28-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-i-t-bihar-patna-vs-moti-lal-jaindev-officerlic-on-28-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-i-t-bihar-patna-vs-moti-lal-jaindev-officerlic-on-28-september-2010\",\"name\":\"C.I.T. Bihar Patna vs Moti Lal Jain,Dev.Officer,Lic on 28 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-06T01:01:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-i-t-bihar-patna-vs-moti-lal-jaindev-officerlic-on-28-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-i-t-bihar-patna-vs-moti-lal-jaindev-officerlic-on-28-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-i-t-bihar-patna-vs-moti-lal-jaindev-officerlic-on-28-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"C.I.T. Bihar Patna vs Moti Lal Jain,Dev.Officer,Lic on 28 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"C.I.T. Bihar Patna vs Moti Lal Jain,Dev.Officer,Lic on 28 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-i-t-bihar-patna-vs-moti-lal-jaindev-officerlic-on-28-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"C.I.T. Bihar Patna vs Moti Lal Jain,Dev.Officer,Lic on 28 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-i-t-bihar-patna-vs-moti-lal-jaindev-officerlic-on-28-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-06T01:01:02+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-i-t-bihar-patna-vs-moti-lal-jaindev-officerlic-on-28-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-i-t-bihar-patna-vs-moti-lal-jaindev-officerlic-on-28-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"C.I.T. Bihar Patna vs Moti Lal Jain,Dev.Officer,Lic on 28 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-06T01:01:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-i-t-bihar-patna-vs-moti-lal-jaindev-officerlic-on-28-september-2010"},"wordCount":1831,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court - Orders"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-i-t-bihar-patna-vs-moti-lal-jaindev-officerlic-on-28-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-i-t-bihar-patna-vs-moti-lal-jaindev-officerlic-on-28-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-i-t-bihar-patna-vs-moti-lal-jaindev-officerlic-on-28-september-2010","name":"C.I.T. Bihar Patna vs Moti Lal Jain,Dev.Officer,Lic on 28 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-06T01:01:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-i-t-bihar-patna-vs-moti-lal-jaindev-officerlic-on-28-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-i-t-bihar-patna-vs-moti-lal-jaindev-officerlic-on-28-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-i-t-bihar-patna-vs-moti-lal-jaindev-officerlic-on-28-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"C.I.T. Bihar Patna vs Moti Lal Jain,Dev.Officer,Lic on 28 September, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=101"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=101"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=101"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=101"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}