Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.32 seconds)Section 17 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Payment Of Bonus Act, 1965
K.A. Choudary vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Ors. on 10 December, 1987
10. The learned Departmental Representative had relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of K. A. Choudhary vs. CIT (supra) and B. Chinnaiah (supra) and also of Orissa High Court in the case of Govind Chandra Pani (supra), Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shivraj Bhatia (supra) and R. N. Verma (supra), the Karnataka High Court in the case of M. D. Patel (supra). In all the above cases, the Hon'ble High Courts have taken the view that the incentive bonus received by the Development Officers are part of the salary and no other deduction except the standard deduction is permissible.
V.V.R.N.M. Subbayya Chettiar vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 21 December, 1950
10. The learned Departmental Representative had relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of K. A. Choudhary vs. CIT (supra) and B. Chinnaiah (supra) and also of Orissa High Court in the case of Govind Chandra Pani (supra), Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shivraj Bhatia (supra) and R. N. Verma (supra), the Karnataka High Court in the case of M. D. Patel (supra). In all the above cases, the Hon'ble High Courts have taken the view that the incentive bonus received by the Development Officers are part of the salary and no other deduction except the standard deduction is permissible.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M.D. Patil on 19 September, 1997
10. The learned Departmental Representative had relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of K. A. Choudhary vs. CIT (supra) and B. Chinnaiah (supra) and also of Orissa High Court in the case of Govind Chandra Pani (supra), Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shivraj Bhatia (supra) and R. N. Verma (supra), the Karnataka High Court in the case of M. D. Patel (supra). In all the above cases, the Hon'ble High Courts have taken the view that the incentive bonus received by the Development Officers are part of the salary and no other deduction except the standard deduction is permissible.
Life Insurance Corporation Class-I ... vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India And ... on 9 June, 1997
(6) CIT vs. M. D. Patil (1998) 229 ITR 71 (Kar) (FB); and
(7) LIC Class I Officer Association vs. LIC (1998) 229 ITR 510 (Bom).
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Kiranbhai H. Shelat And Ors. on 27 April, 1998
In support of this contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kiranbhai H. Shelat/Chiman Bhai S. Patel vs. CIT (1998) 99 Taxman 63 (Guj).
Thomas Vaidyan vs Income-Tax Officer on 17 January, 1996
That conveyance allowance and additional conveyance allowance is the reimbursement of the expenditure incurred by the Development Officers in performance of duties. The Government of India in Notification No. GSR 606(E), dt. 9th June, 1989, has notified that the expenditure incurred on conveyance in performance of duties of an office shall be exempt under s. 10(14). He stated that the LIC allowed conveyance allowance only after considering the work done by the Development Officers. There are strict norms for allowing such conveyance allowance. Thus, the conveyance allowance is the expenditure actually incurred by the Development Officers and it has already been notified by the Government to be exempt under s. 10(14). He, therefore, stated that the entire conveyance allowance should be exempt under s. 10(14). He also relied upon the decision of Tribunal Cochin Bench in the case of Thomas Vaidyan vs. ITO (1997) 63 ITD 324 (Coch).
Bhogilal H. Patel vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central) ... on 8 August, 1969
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Chimanbhai H. Patel (supra) have taken the view that the incentive bonus is to be assessed under the head "Salary", but the expenditure incurred for earning such incentive bonus should be allowed. It is a settled law that if two views are possible, the view which is in favour of the assessee should be adopted.