SHRI PUNIT DINESH BHATT,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), VADODARA

ITA 1319/AHD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 April 2019AY 2013-143 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, following a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years where similar expenses were allowed. No dissimilarity in facts was pointed out by the revenue.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a Development Officer at LIC, received an incentive of Rs. 29,46,082/- and claimed expenses of Rs. 8,83,825/- (30% of incentive) for earning it. The AO disallowed these expenses for lack of details, a view upheld by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether expenses claimed by an LIC Development Officer at 30% of incentive bonus are allowable for earning such income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD

For Appellant: DR यथ क ओर से /

आदेश/O R D E R

PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM:

The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Vadodara (‘CIT(A)’ in short), dated 24.02.2017 arising in the assessment order dated 23.03.2015 passed by the

ITA No. 1319/Ahd/17 [Punit D. Bhatt vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2013-14 - 2 -

Assessing Officer (AO) under S. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2013-14.

At the time of scrutiny of the return of income for AY 2013- 14 in question, it was observed by the AO that the assessee is working in LIC of India as Development Officer and has received incentive to the tune of Rs.29,46,082/-. The assessee offered Rs.20,62,257/- to tax after claiming expenses of Rs.8,83,825/- @ 30% being permissible expenditure for earning incentive. The AO however disallowed the expense amounting to Rs.8,83,825/- and claimed in the absence of proper details.

The CIT(A) in first appeal also confirmed the aforesaid action of the AO.

Before us in the second appeal, the learned AR for the assessee referred to the decision of the Tribunal in its own case in ITA Nos. 2141 & 2142/Ahd/2014 concerning AYs. 2007-08 & 2009-10 order dated 27.10.2017 submitting that in the identical circumstances, the co-ordinate bench has granted relief to the assessee and allowed the claim of expenses being 30% of the incentive bonus amount.

The learned DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

The issue towards allowability of 30% of incentive bonus in controversy has already been examined by the co-ordinate bench in assessee’s own case in other assessment years. There being

ITA No. 1319/Ahd/17 [Punit D. Bhatt vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2013-14 - 3 -

dissimilarity in facts pointed out on behalf of the Revenue, we allow the appeal of the assessee in parity with the decision of the co-ordinate bench.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

This Order pronounced in Open Court on 25/04/2019

Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 25/04/2019 True Copy S. K. SINHA आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. राज�व / Revenue 2. आवेदक / Assessee 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद ।

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →