| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2010 SLG 2044 2010 SLD 2044 (2010) 320 ITR 489 |
Kerala High Court
IT APPEAL. NOS 82, 119, 161, 165 AND 166 OF 2008, FEBRUARY 13, 2009
C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR AND K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
P.K.R. Menon and Jose Joseph for the Appellant.
IT APPEAL. NOS 82, 119, 161, 165 AND 166 OF 2008, FEBRUARY 13, 2009
C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR AND K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
P.K.R. Menon and Jose Joseph for the Appellant.
Commissioner of Income Tax
v.
N. Shajilal
Law:
Section:
Section 10(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Exchange risk premium Where employer, namely, LIC, which is a statutory corporation, was reimburs- ing only actual expenditure incurred by Development Officers for travel to promote business of LIC, such additional conveyance allowance granted by LIC to Development Officers was exempt from tax under section 10(14 ) [In favour of assessee] In view of the decision in Franco John v. Union of India [2004] 269 ITR 441 (Ker.), where the employer namely, LIC, which is a statutory corporation, was reimbursing only actual expenditure incurred by the Development Officers for travel to promote business of the LIC, such additional conveyance allowance granted by the LIC to Development Officers was exempt from tax under section 10(14). P.K.R. Menon and Jose Joseph for the Appellant. JUDGMENT C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. - The question raised in all these appeals filed by the Revenue is whether the additional conveyance allowance granted by the LIC to Development Officers is exempt from tax under section 10(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as held by the lower authorities. We have heard standing counsel appearing for the Department and have perused the orders of the Tribunal and that of the first appellate authority. 2. This court had occasion to…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492