TAX CASE No.1 OF 1998 (Against the statement of the case in R.A.No. 14 (Pat)/96 (arising out of I.T.A. No. 759 (PAT) / 1993), Asstt. Year- 1992-1993, in the case of Shri Shailendra Kumar Shail, D.O., L.I.C., Branch-1, Muzaffarpur.) Shailendra Kumar Shail, Development Officer, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch No.-1, Muzaffarpur------------------------------------(Applicant) Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bihar, Patna.----------------------------------(Respondent) For the Appellant : 1. Mr. Harshwardhan Prasad, Sr. Standing Counsel. 2. Mrs. Archana Sinha, Jr. Standing Counsel. TAX CASE No. 5 OF 1998 (Against the statement of the case in R.A. Nos. 22 & 23 (Pat) / 1997 (arising out of ITA Nos. 343 & 526 (P) /93) Asstt. Years 90-91 & 91-92 in the case of Shri Motilal Jain, D.O., L.I.C., Exhibition Road, Patna) Shri Moti Lal Jain, Development Officer, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Exhibition Road, Patna-----------------------------------(Applicant) Versus Commmissioner of Iincome-tax, patna, Bihar----------------------------------(Respondent) TAX CASE No. 6 OF 1998 Shri Moti Lal Jain, Development Officer, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Exhibition Road, Patna- ------------------------------------(Appellant) Versus Commmissioner of Iincome-tax, patna, Bihar ----------------------------------(Respondent) For the Appellant : 1. Mr. Harshwardhan Prasad, Sr. Standing Counsel. 2. Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, Jr. Standing Counsel. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRAMAULI KUMAR PRASAD THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBASH CHANDRA JHA ------------------ Prasad & Jha, J.J. The Patna Bench of the Income Tax Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion:- 1. “Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that incentive bonus earned by the assessee, a development officer of LIC is salary - 2 - as defined in Section 17 of the Act keeping in view the terms and conditions, Rules and regulation of service and is not professional income?” 2. “Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income- tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is not entitled to deduction to the extent of 40% as expenditure for earning such incentive bonus?” Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner. However, Mrs. Archana Sinha appearing on behalf of the revenue submits that the questions sent for our opinion have already been answered by a Division Bench of this Court in Tax Case No. 13 of 1991 (Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar, Patna Vs. Shri Ramji Prasad) disposed of on 7th February, 2008. These references are answered in the same terms. They are accordingly disposed of. Let a copy of our opinion be forwarded to the Patna Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Patna High Court, the 20th of Oct., 2008 NAFR/AFR Sanjeet (Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.) (Subash Chandra Jha, J.) - 3 -