COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. DINESHCHANDRA S. SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE CIT has filed this application seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment rendered on 27th April. 1998. in IT Ref. No. 132 of 1996. The judgment rendered by this Court on 27th April. 1998, is a common judgment in relation to IT Ref. Nos. 54 and 272 of 1993. 121 and 132 of 1996; 15, 19 and 49 of 1997 reported as CIT v. Kiranbhai H. Shelat and Anr. (1998) 147 CTR (Guj) 43 - -Ed.

(2.) IN the IT Ref. No. 132 of 1996, made at the instance of the Revenue following question of law was referred: Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that incentive bonus earned by the assessee as Development Officer of LIC was part of salary within the ambit of Section 17 of the Act and no deductions on account of expenses were permissible?

(3.) SINCE this was the only application filed by the Revenue, this Court has passed an order on 13th May, 2008 observing therein that in light of the apex Court decision in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalai and Anr. : [2001]249ITR219(SC) , the applicant Revenue is required to establish that all assessees have been treated alike and it is not open to the Revenue to accept the Judgment in the case of one or the other assessee and challenge the correctness of the Judgment in the case of other assessees without just cause. The learned standing counsel Shri M.R. Bhatt stated that the judgment in the case of other assessees may not have been challenged due to low tax effect. The Court has also recorded submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the assessee that even in the case of the respondent assessee the tax effect is low. The Court, therefore, directed the applicant Revenue to place on record the tax effect in case of each assessee for each of the references decided under the common judgment.