<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2018 (6) TMI 1845 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311244</link>
    <description>House rent allowance claimed by a judicial officer was not eligible for full exemption because the special exemption framework for constitutional court judges did not apply, and the claim was governed only by the ordinary Income-tax Act rules; the disallowance was upheld. Medical allowance required reconsideration on the basis of a comparable assessment allowing exemption up to Rs. 15,000, so the matter was remitted for verification. Sumptuary allowance, treated by CBDT clarification as akin to entertainment allowance, was exempt to the extent permitted under salary computation provisions. Residence office allowance was held to be a reimbursement of official expenses and not taxable salary income. Leave encashment was also held exempt, as the later State notification could not operate retrospectively to deny the benefit for the relevant year.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2023 20:04:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=735200" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 1845 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311244</link>
      <description>House rent allowance claimed by a judicial officer was not eligible for full exemption because the special exemption framework for constitutional court judges did not apply, and the claim was governed only by the ordinary Income-tax Act rules; the disallowance was upheld. Medical allowance required reconsideration on the basis of a comparable assessment allowing exemption up to Rs. 15,000, so the matter was remitted for verification. Sumptuary allowance, treated by CBDT clarification as akin to entertainment allowance, was exempt to the extent permitted under salary computation provisions. Residence office allowance was held to be a reimbursement of official expenses and not taxable salary income. Leave encashment was also held exempt, as the later State notification could not operate retrospectively to deny the benefit for the relevant year.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311244</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>