1990 (1) TMI 92

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... scheme applicable to Field Officers like the assessee. The CIT held that this amount was part of salary under s. 17 since it was received by the assessee as an employee from the employer and it was in accordance with the terms of employment. Since the LIC had agents apart from the Field Officers like the assessee it was only the receipt of the agents which was professional or business receipt. If....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Bench in the case of L.T. Mulchandani dt. 15th Oct., 1984 and (4) the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court where the petition under s. 256(2) on the same question has been rejected. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative tried to distinguish the decision of the Chandhigarh Bench on the following grounds. He has first of all pointed out that (1) it was not argued before th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... salary cum-bonus. He relied upon the decision in L. Jeewanlal vs. CIT (1953) 24 ITR 223 (All) which had laid down certain criteria for this purpose. He also relied upon the decision in CIT vs. India Radiators Ltd. (1976) 105 ITR 680 (Mad) and submitted that bonus was part of salary. According to him, the scheme showed that it was applicable only to a Development Officer and if the assessee's serv....