TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 774
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rajamahendravaram dated 26.09.2018 and 15.10.2018. Since the facts of the case are identical, these appeals are clubbed, heard together and a common order is being passed for the sake of convenience. 2. All the assessees are development officers in Life Insurance Corporation of India. They have filed the returns of income declaring total income as under : Sl.No. Name A.Y. Returned Income (Rs.) (i) Thangirala Immanuel 2008-09 4,74,240 2011-12 6,97,120 (ii) AvadhanulaSrinivasaRao 2011-12 9,88,360 (iii) Nuthalapati Ravi Shankar 2011-12 12,41,650 The Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessees have claimed the exemption u/s 10(14) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (in short 'Act') in resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hin the meaning of section 17(2)] (iii) Such amount is specifically granted to meet expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in the performance of duties of an office or employment of profit (iv) Such amount should be specified and notified in the official gazette by the Central Government. 2.2. According to the AO, all the above conditions required to be satisfied cumulatively, to be entitled for exemption u/s 10(14) of the Act and also there must be a notification issued by the Central Government. In the absence of notification and the assessee not being satisfied with the conditions discussed above, the assessee is held to be not entitled for exemption u/s 10(14) of the Act. Accordingly, made the additio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... taking support from the order of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ramayya & Others (214 ITR 368) and the issue involved in the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh was incentive bonus, but not the allowances which are incurred for the purpose of carrying out the duties. Therefore, argued that the case law relied upon by the Ld.CIT(A) or AO is not applicable in the assessee's case and the assessee's case is squarely covered for exemption u/s 10(14) r.w.Rule 2BB of I.T.Rules. The assessee also relied on the decision of K.Pullarao Vs. ITO in ITA No.1647/Hyd/1995 dated 31.01.2002, wherein the Tribunal has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Appeal No.117/1992 and requested to follow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....employees to submit accounts every month to the employer and along with return to the assessing authority. If, in such matters, filing of the accounts and vouchers/receipts are insisted upon to claim exemption under section 10(14) of the Act by the Income-tax authorities, it will lead to voidable waste of time and expenditure and would serve no useful purpose but on the contrary it would be counter-productive. The coordinate bench of the tribunal in the case of B. Chinnaiah& Others (supra) has considered the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and allowed the deduction claimed by the assessee. In this view of the matter, we hold that the additional conveyance allowance is exempt under section 10(14) of the Act." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....For the sake of convenience, the relevant port ion of the order of the Hon'ble Jurisdict ional High Court , which is extracted by the ITAT, as under: - "We approve the reasoning of the Tribunal. In our view where amounts are paid to the employees by an employer to meet expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively for the performance of the duties, such amounts can be exempted to the extent it is shown that it has been incurred for the purpose for which it was granted. In the case of employees of the State or Corporations, whether statutory or otherwise, where the employer after having surveyed the actual expenditure necessary for performance of the duty, grants actual allowance generally to all the employees, it is to be presum....