9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (2) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posed of by a common order as common questions are involved therein. 2. One assessment was made on the assessee Shri Bimal Kumar Jain as an individual and another assessment in his capacity as Karta of Bimal Kumar Jain HUF with a finding that the income shown by the assessee would be taxed in the hands of the HUF. The assessee is employed at two places, namely, M/s Jain Glass Works (P) Ltd., and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at since this deduction exceeded the deduction given by the ITO under Proviso (ii) to s. 16(i), the assessee was entitled to the higher deduction. At the same time, the ld. AAC expressed the view that the fact that the assessee had added the value of perquisite of car to his declared income from salaries did not effect the applicability of Proviso (ii) to s. 16(i). 5. In ITA Nos. 2635 2636 the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Proviso (ii) to s. 16(i) the ld. ITO justified in restricting the standard deduction to Rs. 750 on the ground that the companies car was available to the assessee for use otherwise than exclusively for the employer's business. 7. The expression used in s. 16(i) being "Salary derived from such employment" and the permissible standard deduction having been expressed therein on a graded scale, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otherwise than wholly and exclusively in the performance of his duties or". On this point, it was contended by the ld. Deptl. Rep. That since the expression "Employer" was used there, the fact that the motor-car was provided only by one of the two employers would not effect the application of this proviso. On the other hand, it was argued by Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Advocate for the assessee, that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
