TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal partly allowed: Exemption for Conveyance Allowance and deduction for LIC business expenses granted.</h1> <h3>D.C.I.T., Circle Faizabad Versus Shri Rajendra Mani Yadav</h3> D.C.I.T., Circle Faizabad Versus Shri Rajendra Mani Yadav - TMI Issues:1. Disallowance of Additional Conveyance Allowance2. Disallowance of Expenses for LIC businessAnalysis:1. The appeal addressed two grievances raised by the assessee. The first issue pertained to the disallowance of Rs. 58,500/- claimed as Additional Conveyance Allowance. The assessee argued that the allowance was exempt as per the TDS certificate issued by LIC in Form No. 16. Citing a tribunal order in favor of the assessee, it was established that the conveyance allowance granted to a DO of LIC is exempt under section 10(14) to the extent actually spent and certified by LIC. The tribunal concurred with this view and decided in favor of the assessee.2. The second issue involved the disallowance of Rs. 12,28,982/- claimed as expenses incurred for the business of LIC, based on 40% of the Incentive Bonus of Rs. 30,72,453/- received from LIC. The assessee contended that post-April 1, 1989, the issue was settled in their favor as per a judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The tribunal noted that the dispute was limited to the period before April 1, 1989, and after this date, only the balance of the incentive bonus was to be treated as salary income. The assessee provided detailed expense breakdowns and supporting documents. Following the Apex Court's judgment, the tribunal allowed a deduction of 30% of the incentive bonus, amounting to Rs. 921,736/-, instead of the claimed 40%. It was established that the expenses were incurred for increasing the business of LIC, and no evidence was presented to refute this claim. Therefore, the tribunal partially decided in favor of the assessee.In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed, with the first issue resolved in favor of the assessee concerning the Additional Conveyance Allowance and the second issue partly in favor of the assessee regarding the expenses for the LIC business.
TaxTMI 