1979 (2) TMI 131

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The material facts may be briefly stated. The assessee is a practicing advocate. In his returns of income for the two assessment years now under appeal the assessee disclosed salary income of Rs. 13,333 and Rs. 10,000 respectively and claimed the standard deductions under s. 16(i) (of Rs. 2,667 and Rs. 2,000 respectively). The ITO assessed these incomes under the head 'salary' as declared in the r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h May, 1974 of M/s. Builcon Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Calcutta, which is on the record). Such being the case it was argued that the question of allowing the standard deduction under s. 16(i) could not arise. 4. The assessee, who personally argued his case before us, contended that as the income had been assessed under the head 'salary' it was now not open to the Deptt. to resile from that posi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s, or as professional income as was now sought to be contended by the Department, the amounts claimed by him (viz. Rs. 2667 and Rs. 2000 respectively) would constitute an admissible deduction under s. 16(i) or s. 37(1), as the case may be, and hence the decision of the AAC called for no interference. 5. On a careful consideration of the rival contentions, we see no merit in the Department s case .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X