<?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>1988 (2) TMI 99 - ITAT BOMBAY-C</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58594</link>
    <description>Amounts received by an employee by virtue of employment were treated as taxable unless a specific exemption applied. Dearness allowance and city compensatory allowance were regarded as salary, and leave encashment as profits in lieu of salary. House rent allowance was not shown to qualify for exemption under section 10(13A) because the claimed payments were not rent to a landlord for residential accommodation. Professional tax was not allowed as a deduction in computing salary income. Compensation for permitting use of a parking space was treated as income from other sources. Revenue&#039;s position was therefore upheld on all substantive issues discussed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Dec 2010 17:38:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=97051" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (2) TMI 99 - ITAT BOMBAY-C</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58594</link>
      <description>Amounts received by an employee by virtue of employment were treated as taxable unless a specific exemption applied. Dearness allowance and city compensatory allowance were regarded as salary, and leave encashment as profits in lieu of salary. House rent allowance was not shown to qualify for exemption under section 10(13A) because the claimed payments were not rent to a landlord for residential accommodation. Professional tax was not allowed as a deduction in computing salary income. Compensation for permitting use of a parking space was treated as income from other sources. Revenue&#039;s position was therefore upheld on all substantive issues discussed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58594</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>