Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.46 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs A.K. Ghosh on 5 May, 2003

Jaysukh R.Patel, Vapi vs Department Of Income Tax

7.15 Following the decisions of the High Courts and the Full Bench decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. M.D. Patil [1998] 229 ITR 71, and disagreeing with the view of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, Hon'ble MP High Court in A.K.Ghosh & Others(supra) held that incentive bonus was only a part of the salary of the assessees and the assessees are not entitled to any deduction over and above the standard deduction.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gopilal Khatri, Gwalior vs Assessee on 22 April, 2013

5.1 In view of the above discussion and following the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High court, we do not find any merit in ground No. 1 of assessee's appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed." 9.1 It is admitted fact that the assessee did not produce any vouchers for claiming the expenses on account of conveyance and addl. Conveyance allowances. According to the salary certificate, LIC has specifically mentioned that the amount of Rs.61,433/- has been paid to the employee to meet the expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred for performing the development duties and have been actually incurred wholly for that purpose and is exempt u/s. 10(14) of the IT Act. The assessee, however, in the return of income claimed deduction of excessive amount of Rs.1,17,062/- for earning incentive bonus. As per decision in the case of A.K. Ghosh (supra), since the incentive bonus is part of the salary, therefore, no further deduction is permissible. The assessee has not 10 ITA No.398/Agra/2011 produced any other evidence before the AO and ld. CIT(A) to prove necessary ingredients of Rs.10(14) that the amount now claimed as deduction was actually incurred for that purpose. In the absence of any evidence produced before the authorities below, the assessee has failed to prove necessary ingredients of Sec. 10(14)(i) of the IT Act. The ld. CIT(A) was, therefore, justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee. This ground of appeal of the assessee is, accordingly, dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Agra Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ranvir Singh Chaudhary, New Delhi vs Dcit, Circle-68(1), New Delhi on 29 July, 2021

9. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides , perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A) and the paper filed on behalf of the assessee. I have also considered the various decisions cited before me. The only issue to be decided in the impugned appeal is regarding the allowability of fixed conveyance allowance and additional conveyance allowance and allowance to Development Officer for procuring business as an allowable expenditure. The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur Bench) in the case of CIT vs. A.K. Ghosh, 263 ITR 3 ITA No.659/Del/2019 536, has held that conveyance allowance and additional conveyance allowance received by the Development Officer of LIC are exempt u/s 10(14) of the IT Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Fabindia Overseas Ltd. vs Dy. Cit on 8 September, 2006

In the case of CIT v. A.K. Ghosh , the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, at page 550, pointed out that a taxing statute has to be construed stricto sensu. The concept of pragmatism or any kind of expediency is, in our considered view, alien to it. To import the said conceptions would not only pave the path of uncertainty but also create an atmosphere of an incurable anomaly.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs S.C. Wadhwa on 13 January, 2005

3. Shri Rajesh Bindal argued that the incentive bonus paid to the assessee was a part of his salary, inasmuch as, the same had not been paid to him for meeting the expenses as a special allowance, which was necessarily and exclusively incurred by him in the performance of his duties. He relied on the judgments of this Court in B.M. Parmar v. CIT and K.K. Kansal v. CIT and also a judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. A.K. Ghosh and Ors. and argued that the assessee was not entitled to any deduction from the incentive bonus paid by the Corporation.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

C.I.T. Bihar Patna vs Moti Lal Jain,Dev.Officer,Lic on 28 September, 2010

In the matter of Ramjee Prasad, identical question of law was referred to this Court. This Court followed the judgments of the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. M.D. Patil [1998 (220) ITR 71] and of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the cases of Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. A.K. Ghosh [(2003) 263 ITR 536] and of Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Gurudeo Singh Jaggi [(2004) 267 ITR 763]. The aforesaid High Courts have taken a consistent view that the amount of incentive bonus received by the Development Officers of the Corporation is not referable to and is not exempt under Section 10(14) of the Act, but 7 is a `salary' within the meaning of Section 17(1)(iv) of the Act. The only deduction admissible will be the standard deduction available under Section 16 of the Act. The appeal preferred against the above-referred judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh was not entertained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 9 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Hemant Kumar Jadhav, vs Assessee

5. As regards to the reliance placed by the assessee on the judgment of the Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of CIT vs. A.K. Ghosh reported in 263 ITR 536, the ld.CIT(A) observed that 2 -: 3 :- the facts of the assessee's case were different from the facts of the case relied upon, since the assessee miserably failed to prove that the expenses claimed to be incurred on conveyance were actually incurred.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Gurudeo Singh Jaggi on 9 May, 2003

5. This court recently in the case has held that the assessee is entitled to get conveyance allowance and additional conveyance allowance as incurred by him. As far as expenditure relating to incentive bonus is concerned this court in CIT v. A.K. Ghosh [2003] 263 ITR 536-I. T. A. No. 19 of 1999 and other connected appeals has held that deduction on that score is impermissible.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next