Skip to content


Madhavrao J. ScIndia Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Reference No. 217 of 1988
Judge
Reported in[2000]243ITR683(Bom)
ActsIncome-tax Act, 1961 - Sections 10(14)
AppellantMadhavrao J. ScIndia
RespondentCommissioner of Income-tax
Appellant AdvocateAshok Kotangale, Adv., i/b., Shobha Jagtiani, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateB.M. Chatterjee, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....to be specified under the provisions of chapter xii of the code. in terms of section 41, a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant or order from the magistrate for any or all of the conditions specified in that provision. language of this provision clearly suggested that the police officer can arrest a person without an order from the magistrate. thus, there appears to be no reason why on the strength of section 156(3) of the code, any restriction should be read into the power specifically granted by the legislature to the police officer. of course, freedom of investigation is the essence of these provisions but in order to suppress the mischief it is sufficiently indicated under different provisions of the code that the arresting officer should exercise his power or..........facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was correct in holding that the travel allowance received by the applicant from scindia investments pvt. ltd., was not exempt in terms of section 10(14) of the income-tax act, 1961 ?' 2. as far as question no. 1 is concerned, both learned counsel for the parties state that the controversy involved in this question is squarely covered by the decision of this court in mrs. meherbai n. sethna v. cat : [1994]209itr453(bom) . accordingly, question no. 1 is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.3. as regards question no. 2 reproduced hereinabove, we mention at the very outset that on going through the order passed by the authorities below, we feel that this question pertains to daily.....
Judgment:

S.H. Kapadia, J.

1. At the instance of the assessee, the following two questions of law have been referred to this court for opinion under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment year 1973-74 :

'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the gross dividend declared by the companies in Ceylon was chargeable to tax and not the net amount after deducting the tax at source and the cost of foreign exchange entitlement certificate ?

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the travel allowance received by the applicant from Scindia Investments Pvt. Ltd., was not exempt in terms of Section 10(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'

2. As far as question No. 1 is concerned, both learned counsel for the parties state that the controversy involved in this question is squarely covered by the decision of this court in Mrs. Meherbai N. Sethna v. CAT : [1994]209ITR453(Bom) . Accordingly, question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

3. As regards question No. 2 reproduced hereinabove, we mention at the very outset that on going through the order passed by the authorities below, we feel that this question pertains to daily allowance received by the assessee. In the circumstances, question No. 2 should be read as referring to daily allowance and not the travel allowance. In the present matter, the Tribunal has observed that the head office of Scindia Investments Private Limited, is situated at Bombay and the assessee is ordinarily a resident of Gwalior, and as such he was coming from Gwalior for performing duties of his office as director at Bombay. In view of the Explanation to Section 10(14), the assessee in this case cannot claim exemption in respect of allowance received by him for performing his duties as director in office at Bombay. In the circumstances, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the assessee's claim for exemption in terms of Section 10(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

4. Reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //