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 REFERRED CASE NO.71 OF 2001 DT.16.06.2010 Between: Commissioner of Income-tax, A.P.I., Hyderabad ……..Applicant Vs. Sri Ch. Anantharamulu, Miryalaguda ……..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 applicant. None appeared for the respondent though served. The question referred by the Tribunal reads as (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that 40% of the incentive bonus should be allowed as an expenditure in addition to the standard deduction under section 16(i) and more so when the expenditure involved, if any, in travelling conveyance allowance conveyance and additional conveyance allowance provided by the employer and exempted under Section 10(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? And (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is correct in law in holding that the order of the CIT passed under Section 263 was not prejudicial to the interest of Revenue? Now, it is reported by the learned standing counsel 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 also answered. No order as to costs. ________________ B.PRAKASH RAO J., ________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN J., Dt.16.06.2010 Rns [1] ITR VOL.214, PAGE 368