Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. N. Shajilal - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....option exercised before passing of the award. if the option of the owner to acquire the entire building as provided under section 49(1) is accepted by the land acquisition officer, tenant cannot challenge that decision. if the desire exercised by the owner to acquire the entire building is not acceptable, the only option for the land acquisition officer is to withdraw from the acquisition. -- section 49 (1): acquisition of whole of such house or manufactory or building meaning held, the words whole of such house or manufactory or building includes land in which it is situated. in other words, when entire building is acquired, the land in which the building is situated also has to be acquired by the government; if the owner expresses his opinion only to acquire the building materials excluding the land in which it is situated, it is not an option exercised under section 49(1). .....of tax on additional conveyance allowance in the decision in franco john v. union of india reported in : [2004] 269 itr 441 (ker), wherein it was held that reimbursement of actual expenditure incurred by employees towards conveyance expenditure is allowable deduction, whether it be granted as allowance or not. in all these cases, on facts we find that at least the first appellate authority found that the employer namely, lic which is a statutory corporation under the government of india is reimbursing only actual expenditure incurred by the development officers for travel to promote business of the lic. so much so, on facts, the respondent was found eligible for the exemption. we, therefore, dismiss these appeals but leaving freedom to the department to establish and disallow exemption in cases where the employee does not prove that the additional conveyance allowance received is not reimbursement of actual expenditure and is not a perquisite which is outside the scope of section 10(14) of the act.