9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (11) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 36(1)(iia) has not been allowed. The assessee had paid Rs. 22,830 as salary to an employee. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the assessee's claim under the aforesaid section on the ground that it exceeded Rs. 20,000 and so the assessee's case was covered by the second proviso to the said sub-section. The assessee's contention was that in calculating the salary standard deduction had to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. First of all, the fact that the Income-tax Officer had dropped the rectification proceedings for the earlier two assessment years is not relevant for our purpose. That might have been done because the issue was debatable. We have, therefore, to consider the question on merits. Under the said sub-clause (iia) the assessee is entitled to a deduction of a sum equal to one and one-third times the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g section. But that is only for the purpose of charging to tax. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that section 16 merely referred to the computation. However, in order to find out whether the aforesaid proviso is applicable or not we have to make the computation. How are we to find out whether for the purpose of said sub-clause (iia) and the aforesaid proviso the salary exceeded Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
