9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of conveyance allowance under s. 16(i) of the IT Act, 1961 for a High Court Judge. Analysis: The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the AAC regarding the deduction of Rs. 1,000 under s. 16(i) of the IT Act, 1961, instead of the claimed Rs. 3,500 for the asst. yr. 1981-82. The dispute revolved around whether the conveyance allowance of Rs. 300 granted to the High Court Judge should be treated as a conveyance allowance under s. 16(i) or a special allowance under s. 10(14) of the IT Act, 1961. The assessee argued that the allowance was meant to maintain a car essential for performing judicial duties, thus qualifying for the standard deduction. The Departmental Representative relied on the AAC's order. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of s. 16(i) and s. 22B of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954. It noted that the legislature replaced separate deductions with a single deduction under s. 16(i), subject to a maximum of Rs. 3,500 for employment-related expenses. The Tribunal deliberated on the nature of the conveyance allowance and the requirement for a High Court Judge to maintain a car for official duties. It referenced s. 10(14) which exempts special allowances for expenses incurred in the performance of duties. The Tribunal considered precedents like CIT vs. D.R. Phatak and Owens vs. Pook to interpret the treatment of allowances reimbursing expenses incurred for duty performance. The Tribunal concluded that the conveyance allowance under s. 22B was, in essence, a special allowance to maintain a car for official duties, falling under s. 10(14) of the IT Act, 1961. It held that the High Court Judge was entitled to the maximum deduction of Rs. 3,500 under s. 16(i). The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.
|
