CIT, PATIALA vs. M/S.HOSHIARI LAL KEWAL KRISHAN

ITR/79/1989HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01022620198918 October 2006Author: MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the questions of law referred to it were covered by its previous judgment in B.M. Parmar v. CIT (1999) 235 ITR 679. Furthermore, in a recent judgment dated September 5, 2006, in ITR No. 15 of 1995 (The Commissioner of Income Tax, Haryana, Rohtak v. Kamal Kishore Batra DO, LIC, Kalanaur, Rohtak), the court had answered similar questions in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Therefore, applying the ratio decidendi from these precedents, the High Court answered both referred questions in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The operative direction was to answer the questions as indicated, implying confirmation of the Revenue's position.

What were the facts?

The case involves multiple Income Tax Reference Applications (ITR Nos. 12, 160, 169, 189, 271 of 1995, and 74 and 79 of 1998) filed by the Revenue against the assessee, Devinder Kumar Aggarwal, a Development Officer with LIC. The assessment year in question is 1992-93. The references arise from an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench 'A', on December 31, 1996. The core dispute concerns the taxability of incentive bonus received by the assessee. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana is considering these references.

What were the issues?

The High Court was asked to decide the following questions of law: 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding the whole of incentive bonus as part of Salary under section 17 of the Income Tax Act? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally correct not to allow any expenses out of gross incentive bonus under section 10(14) of Income Tax Act in view of the Notification issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes? The Revenue argued that the entire incentive bonus should be treated as salary and no expenses should be allowed against it, relying on the ITAT's order. The Assessee's contentions are not explicitly recorded in the provided text, but the questions framed imply a dispute over the classification of incentive bonus and the deductibility of expenses. The judgment refers to previous High Court decisions on similar matters.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 17,Section 10(14),Section 256(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ITR No.79 of 1998 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITR No.79 of 1998 Date of decision: 6.9.2006 Devinder Kumar Aggarwal, Development Officer, LIC,Jhajjar,District Rohtak. ....Petitioner versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Haryana, Rohtak. .....Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate, for the revenue.

JUDGMENT: This judgment will dispose of ITR Nos.12, 160, 169, 189,271 of 1995, 74 and 79 of 1998. Following questions of law have been referred for opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “A”, New Delhi, arising out of its order dated 31.12.1996, in respect of assessment year 1992-93:- “1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding the whole of incentive bonus as part of Salary under section 17 of the Income Tax Act?

2.

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally correct not to allow any expenses out of gross incentive bonus under section 10(14) of I

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 17

All 167 judgments and leading authorities on Section 17 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →