TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (10) TMI 7
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cannot the entire incentive bonus received by the assessee be treated as part of the salary ? (ii) the assessee is entitled to deduction of the expenditure claimed ?" Income-tax References Nos. 90 to 93 of 1986: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, incentive bonus received by the assessee who is a Life Insurance Corporation Development Officer can only be treated as part of the salary and whether he is entitled to claim 40% out of it as expenditure ?" The respondents, in this batch of cases, are Development Officers in the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Identical questions arise for consideration in these cases. In I. T. R. Nos. 560 to 563 of 1985, we are concerned with the assessment years 1980-81 and 198....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the assessees. The main plea of the Revenue was that the Appellate Tribunal having found that the incentive bonus received by the assessees-Development Officers forms part of their salary was wholly in error in upholding the assessees' claim for deduction of 40% of the incentive bonus as expenditure for earning the income. On the other hand, counsel for the assessees contended that the Appellate Tribunal had before it the different decisions of the various Benches of the Tribunal and the incentive bonus will broadly be covered by section 10(14) of the Income-tax Act and so it is not taxable at all. It is an error to say that the Appellate Tribunal found that the incentive bonus received by the assessees will form part of their salary. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ive bonus/commission at the starting point itself, i.e., at the point it is treated as income chargeable under the head "Salaries". Following the said decision of the President, the Appellate Tribunal held that the assessees' claim for deduction of 40% of the incentive bonus as expenditure for earning the income will stand allowed. The order of the Appellate Tribunal is far from satisfactory. The Tribunal has mechanically followed the order passed by the President of the Tribunal dated July 31, 1984, in 1. T. A. Nos. 2237 to 2239 (Bom) of 1981. We are not in a position to know the contents of the various conflicting decisions rendered by various Benches of the Tribunal. The decisions as such were not placed before us. That apart, the order....