1982 (10) TMI 108

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... unions for devaluation compensation to be paid to both the officers and crew. This was to be paid only for the period, the vessel was away from the Indian shores, i.e., it was payable as from the day the vessel sailed from the last Indian port up to the time the vessel returned to the first Indian port. The letter dated 8-7-1982 of the Maritime Union of India, addressed to the assessee, reads as under : "Dear Sir, We would refer to your enquiry regarding devaluation compensation which was paid to the floating staff officers by Indian Shipping Companies. The relevant facts about this allowance are as under : The rupee was devalued in June 1966 vis-a-vis the hard currencies with the result the floating staff officers and crew on our....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tal representative strongly urged that the sum of Rs. 2,469 received as devaluation allowance was taxable. It has been paid to the assessee by virtue of this employment, it is not an expenditure incurred for the purposes of the services on duty in the course of his employment. It is on account of devaluation of the Indian rupee. The assessee has been paid as he was getting lesser money in the foreign currency. The departmental representative urged that the AAC was not justified in deleting the sum of Rs. 2,469. 3. The learned counsel for the assessee strongly urged that what has been paid as devaluation allowance is only reimbursement of the expenses incurred by the assessee on account of devaluation. It cannot be treated as salary, it i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y and was assessable. 6. In CIT v. J. Jenkin Thomas [1975] 101 ITR 511 (Mad.), the question was whether the subsistence allowance paid to the foreign technicians was liable to tax. The Madras High Court held that the subsistence allowance paid to the foreign technicians who were working at Neyveli Lignite Corporation was taxable as the said payment was not for meeting the expenses incurred in the performance of duties, but was for their own benefit. The decision in the case of Owen v. Pook (Inspector of Taxes) [1969] 74 ITR 147 (HL), relied on by the assessee, has been considered in this case. In fact in that case the assessee incurred the expenses in the performance of duties of his office. Hence, it was held that the amount received fo....