This appeal for year 1983-84, is by Revenue. point raised in this appeal is whether AAC was correct in directing that sum of Rs. 11,600 is to be allowed as deduction against receipt of incentive bonus of Rs. 29,000 towards expenditure incurred for earning income. assessee is Development Officer of tee LIC and was paid salary by Corporations. He also received incentive bonus of Rs. 29,000. He claimed deduction at 40 per cent of expenses in respect of earning of incentive bonus. For this purpose he relied on order of Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench dt. 27th Feb., 1982 in case of ITO, Dist. II (44), Ludhianan vs. Raj Kumar Sethi in ITA Nos. 186 and 187/Chd/81 for asst. yrs. 1977-78 and 1978-79. ITO did not allow deduction of expenditure on ground that bonus received by assessee formed part of salary of assessee and assessee is entitled only to standard deduction from salary income and nothing more. He also said that there is no evidence to show that assessee had incurred expenditure. AAC, however, followed order of Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (supra) and allowed deduction of Rs. 11,600 being 40 per cent of bonus towards expenditure. It is urged on behalf of Revenue that assessee is whole-time employee of LIC of India and remuneration and bonus which is received from employer consequently falls under head salary as defined under s. 17 of Act, and that no deduction other than those specifically permitted under s. 16 could be allowed. it is also urged that assessee has not maintained any record to prove that extent of expenditure incurred in this regard and consequently no amount is admissible. On behalf of assessee, reliance is placed on order of Chandigarh Bench (supra). It is submitted that expenditure actually claimed by assessee is supported to major extent by necessary vouchers, that quantum of expenditure claimed though estimate is not unreasonable and excessive and therefore, no interference is called for in order of AAC. We have perused order of Chandigarh Bench of Tribunal. assessee in that case was also Development Officer of LIC of India. Tribunal has considered that on terms on which assessee was employed as Development Officer and terms on which incentive bonus is given, though he is employee of Corporation for earning basic salary income, he has to put in efforts in propagating virtues of insuring lives and securing business which forms base for earning inceptive bonus, that thus he was agent of Corporation insofar as that sector of his activity was concerned and incentive bonus is income from profession. We agree with these conclusions reached by Chandigarh Bench of Tribunal and since assessee in this appeal is also Development Officer of Corporation and has earned incentive bonus in same way as assessee before Chandigarh Bench, we would follow order of Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench. We also feel that quantum of expenditure claimed by assessee is not unreasonable. In other case also 40 per cent of expenditure has been allowed. We, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with order of AAC. This appeal is dismissed. *** FOURTH INCOME TAX OFFICER v. H. MAHADEVAN