9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether conveyance allowance paid to the members of the petitioners' association is exempted from payment of tax u/s 10(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Summary: Issue 1: Exemption of Conveyance Allowance u/s 10(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 The primary question in this petition is whether the conveyance allowance of Rs. 100 paid to the employees is exempt from tax u/s 10(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Section 10(14) specifies that any special allowance or benefit granted to meet expenses wholly, necessarily, and exclusively incurred in the performance of duties of an office or employment of profit, to the extent such expenses are actually incurred, is exempt from tax. Rule 2BB(1)(c) of the Income-tax Rules further clarifies that any allowance granted to meet expenditure incurred on conveyance in the performance of duties is exempt, provided free conveyance is not provided by the employer. The petitioners, an association of Class I officers, argued that the conveyance allowance was understood to be non-taxable based on negotiations and communications from respondent No. 1, including a circular/fax message from March 21, 1996, and an article in the official publication "Yogakshema." However, a subsequent circular on February 14, 1997, reversed this position, stating that the conveyance allowance should be considered part of salary and taxed. Respondent No. 1, through affidavits, contended that the conveyance allowance of Rs. 100 per month is not "expended in the performance of duties" and is a lump sum payment made irrespective of whether the employee is on duty, on leave, or the distance between the employee's residence and office. This allowance is paid uniformly across all offices of the Corporation, irrespective of city classification or proximity to the office. The court examined precedents, including the cases of J. G. Mankad v. CIT [1965] 55 ITR 448 (Guj) and CIT v. Shriram Refrigeration Industries Ltd. [1992] 197 ITR 431 (Delhi), which emphasized that for an allowance to be exempt, it must be wholly and necessarily incurred in the performance of duties and required by the conditions of service. The court concluded that the conveyance allowance paid under rule 9(b) of the Rules is not reimbursement for expenses incurred in the performance of duties but a general allowance paid irrespective of actual expenditure on conveyance. Therefore, it does not qualify for exemption u/s 10(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 2BB(1)(c) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Conclusion: The writ petition is rejected, and the rule is discharged. The conveyance allowance of Rs. 100 per month paid to the employees is not exempt from tax u/s 10(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. There shall be no order as to costs.
|
