Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Union of India and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
counsels: vineet kothari, for the assessee s. bhandawat, for the revenue head note: income tax exemption under s. 10(14)--special allowance paid to lic employeeconveyance allowance and additional conveyance allowance catch note: if there is a clear cut pronouncement regarding the conveyance allowance not exempted under section 10(14), then obviously the additional conveyance allowance will not be exempted. held: if there is a clear-cut pronouncement regarding the conveyance allowance not exempted under section 10(14) of the income tax act, 1961, then obviously the additional conveyance allowance will not be exempted under section 10(14) and that is the view which the court had taken on 3-11-1999, in s.b. civil writ petition no. 1617/91. case law analysis: shiv raj bhatia v. lic of india.....orderb. j. shethna, j.the short question involved in this matter is 'whether the conveyance allowance and the additional conveyance allowance can be exempted under section 10(14) of the income tax act, 1961 ?' this question is already answered by me against the petitioner in s.b. civil writ petition no. 1617/912. however, an attempt is made by learned counsel mr. kothari for the petitioner to distinguish my aforesaid judgment by submitting that on an incorrect statement made by learned counsel mr. s. bhandawat, this court took the aforesaid view. mr. kothari also tried to rely upon the judgment of punjab high court in cit v. chaman lal chandok . he also tried to submit that two other judgments reported in life insurance corpn. class i officers association v. life insurance corporation of.....

Judgment:
ORDER

B. J. Shethna, J.

The short question involved in this matter is 'whether the conveyance allowance and the additional conveyance allowance can be exempted under section 10(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?' This question is already answered by me against the petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1617/91

2. However, an attempt is made by learned counsel Mr. Kothari for the petitioner to distinguish my aforesaid judgment by submitting that on an incorrect statement made by learned counsel Mr. S. Bhandawat, this court took the aforesaid view. Mr. Kothari also tried to rely upon the judgment of Punjab High Court in CIT v. Chaman Lal Chandok . He also tried to submit that two other judgments reported in Life Insurance Corpn. Class I Officers Association v. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. : [1998]229ITR510(Bom) and CIT v. E.A. Rajendran : [1999]235ITR514(Mad) relied by this court do not squarely cover the controversy about the additional conveyance allowance. However, he conceded that the point in question regarding conveyance allowance is covered against him. However, he states that in the aforesaid judgments, the High Courts have confined itself to the question regarding conveyance allowance only.

3. I am afraid this submission of Mr. Kothari cannot be accepted and on such ground, the view taken by this court earlier cannot be given go-bye. If there is a clear-cut pronouncement regarding the conveyance allowance not exempted under section 10(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, then obviously the additional conveyance allowance will not be exempted under section 10(14) and that is the view which have taken on 3-11-1999, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1617/91 (Annex 6 to writ petition at p. 62).

Under the circumstances, I do not see any reason to take a different view in the matter. Therefore, this petition is required to be dismissed in terms of the judgment of this court delivered on 3-11-1999 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1617/91, and accordingly, it is dismissed.

4. Stay petition is also dismissed.

Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated forthwith.

5. At this stage, on oral request is made by learned counsel Mr. Kothari to extend the stay for ten days which is refused because the stay was not extended. Once this court comes to the conclusion that this petition has no substance and it is squarely covered against the petitioner by the judgment of this court, then there is no question of acceding to this oral request for extending the stay for ten days to enable the petitioner to obtain appropriate order from the Hon'ble Division Bench. Hence, this oral request is rejected.