S.JASBIR SINGH GILL vs. CIT ASR.

PDF · subscribers

ITR/24/1998HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01037990199831 October 2006Bench: MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court answered the referred question of law in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The Court found that the issue was covered by its own previous judgment in B.M. Parmar v. C.I.T. (1999) 235 ITR 679. Furthermore, in a more recent judgment dated September 5, 2006, in I.T.R. No. 15 of 1995 (The Commissioner of Income Tax, Haryana, Rohtak v. Kamal Kishore Batra DO, LIC, Kalanaur, Rohtak), the Court had again answered a similar question in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The ratio decidendi is that incentive bonus is to be treated as part of salary, and no deduction is permissible from it. The operative direction is to answer the reference accordingly.

What were the facts?

This case concerns Income Tax Reference No. 24 of 1998, filed by S. Jasbir Singh Gill, a Development Officer from Amritsar, against the Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar. The reference arises from an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, dated February 20, 1996, pertaining to the assessment year 1992-93. The core of the dispute revolves around the taxability of incentive bonus received by the assessee. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh is tasked with answering a specific question of law referred by the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that incentive bonus was a part of salary and no deduction out of incentive bonus was permissible? Assessee's Contention: The assessee, through their counsel Ms. Rimpi Chaudhary, is implicitly seeking a decision in their favour on the referred question, which challenges the Tribunal's finding. The specific arguments made by the assessee before the Tribunal or the High Court are not detailed in the provided text. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar, supports the Tribunal's decision. The revenue's position is that incentive bonus is indeed part of salary and no deduction is permissible. The revenue relies on previous judgments of the High Court.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.R. No.24 of 1998 Date of decision: 31.10.2006 S. Jasbir Singh Gill, Development Officer, Amritsar. -----Applicant Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Ms. Rimpi Chaudhary, Advocate for the assessee. ----- ORDER: Following question of law has been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, arising out of its order dated 20.02.1996 in I.T.A. No.169(ASR)/1995) in respect of assessment year 1992-93:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that incentive bonus was a part of salary and no deduction out of incentive bonus was permissible?” We find that the issue stands covered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee by the judgment of this Court in B.M. Parmar v. C.I.T. (1999) 235 ITR 679. In our recent judgment dated 5.9.2006 in I.T.R. No.15 of 1995 (The Commissioner of Income Tax, Haryana, Rohtak v. Kamal Kishore Batra DO, LIC, Kalanaur, Rohtak), we have answered the question in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Accordingly, the question referred is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE October 31, 2006 ( RAJESH BINDAL )

ashwani JUDGE P

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →