TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (12) TMI 134
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as stated above. 3. Brief facts are that the assessee is a sitting Hon'ble Judge at the Bombay High Court and his main source of income is his salary. He claimed standard deduction of Rs. 3,500 under s. 16(i) against his salary income. The ITO, taking into consideration that the assessee was in receipt of conveyance allowance from his employer, i.e., the State Government, restricted the standard deduction to Rs. 1,000 only. The AAC also confirmed the said order of the ITO. The assessee, being aggrieved, has come up before the Tribunal in appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the so-called conveyance allowance of Rs. 300 allowed to the assessee under s. 22B of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Servi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is less; Provided that: (i) where the assessee is in receipt of a conveyance allowance from his employer; or (ii) where any motor-car, motor-cycle, scooter or other moped is provided to the assessee by his employer for use by the assessee, otherwise than wholly and exclusively in the performance of his duties; or (iii) where one or more motor-cars are owned or hired by the employer of the assessee and the assessee is allowed the use of such motor car or all or any of such motor cars, otherwise than wholly and exclusively in the performance of his duties, the deduction under this clause shall not exceed one thousand rupees." 6. This clause came into force in the asst. yr. 1975-76 and it provides an omnibus deduction. Prior to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, in fact, it meant that this amount was nothing but an allowance to maintain the car. 8. It cannot be disputed that the legislature wanted that the Hon'ble Judge must, at least, maintain a car for going to the Court and back to his residence. Admittedly, the Hon'ble Judge has not only to work in the Court alone, but he has also to do his judicial work at his residence as well and, consequently, it cannot be denied that his going to the Court and coming back to his residence is part of his duty as he is expected to discharge his judicial duties at both the places. The submission of the learned counsel for the assessee was that, in fact, this allowance was covered by s. 10(14) of the IT Act, 1961, which provides as under: "(14) Any sp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be disputed that the car, in fact, cannot be maintained within Rs. 300 per month granted to the Hon'ble Judges under s. 22B of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954. It, therefore, implies that Rs. 300 per month have been allowed to meet part of car expenses which is required by the Hon'ble Judge for going from his residence to the Court and then from the Court to his residence and he is enjoined to perform his judicial duties at both the place and, therefore, these expenses were necessarily, wholly and exclusively incurred in the performance of his duties of the high office that he holds. No High Court Judge could be allowed the so-called conveyance allowance unless he maintained a car and this condition of maintaining a....