9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (6) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of section 16 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to standard deduction of Rs. 4,500, under section 16(i) since the assessee was getting the sala ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... salary from each of the companies was to be charged under the head "Salaries", only one consolidated deduction of Rs. 1,000 is admissible and accordingly restricted the deduction in the assessment. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted the assessee's contention and directed deduction as claimed by the assessee. The Department came in appeal against this order and the Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e exceed the amount specified under this clause. From Cutfast Abrasive Tools Pvt. Ltd., by way of salary, the assessee got Rs. 79,565. From Cutfast Bonded Abrasives Pvt. Ltd., by way of salary the assessee got Rs. 27,155. In view of the proviso, both these salaries are liable to be consolidated. According to the proviso, where the assessee was provided with a motor car for the purpose of his o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the present case. Therefore, the Tribunal was not correct in granting Rs. 4,500 (Rs. 3,500 + 1,000), as claimed by the assessee. In that view of the matter, we hold that the Tribunal is correct in granting standard deduction under section 16(i) of the Act to the extent of Rs. 3,500 but not correct in granting Rs. 1,000 more than what the assessee is entitled to. We also hold that the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
