THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN PER THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO R.C.NO.92 OF 1996 DT.16.06.2010 Between: Shri K. Pulla Rao, Avanigadda ……..Applicant Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam ……..Respondent. O R D E R: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard Sri S.R.Ashok and V.R.Badri, learned Standing Counsels appearing for the respondent. None appeared for the applicant. The questions referred by the Tribunal read as: (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is justified in holding that disallowance of the assessee’s claim for deduction of 40% of the incentive bonus is a prima facie adjustment as contemplated under Section 143(1)(a) of the I.T.Act?, (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is justified in upholding the intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the IT Act? and (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is justified in upholding the disallowance of the expenditure claimed against the incentive bonus received by the assessee? Now, it is reported by the learned standing counsels that the issue involved in this R.C. is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v. B. CHINNAIAH AND OTHERS[1], which was answered in favour of the Revenue. In view of the aforesaid decision, this Referred Case is answered. No order as to costs. ________________ B.PRAKASH RAO J., ________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN J., Dt.16.06.2010 Rns [1] ITR VOL.214, PAGE 368