ito, Ward 27(1)(3), Mumbai Vs. Capt. H.R. Vinayak

Decided On : Jun-23-2006

Court : Mumbai

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]
Code Context


$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'ito, Ward 27(1)(3), Mumbai Vs. Capt. H.R. Vinayak Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 1 => 'section 144',
			(int) 2 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 3 => 'section 234',
			(int) 4 => 'section 234A',
			(int) 5 => 'section 234(1)(b',
			(int) 6 => 'section 234A',
			(int) 7 => 'section 234A',
			(int) 8 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 9 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 10 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 11 => 'section 143(1)(a',
			(int) 12 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 13 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 14 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 15 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 16 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 17 => 'section 264',
			(int) 18 => 'section 264',
			(int) 19 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 20 => 'section 264',
			(int) 21 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 22 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 23 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 24 => 'section 264',
			(int) 25 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 26 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 27 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 28 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 29 => 'section 264',
			(int) 30 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 31 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 32 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 33 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 34 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 35 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 36 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 37 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 38 => 'section 264',
			(int) 39 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 40 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 41 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 42 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 43 => 'section 17',
			(int) 44 => 'Rule 2BB',
			(int) 45 => 'section 14',
			(int) 46 => 'section 10',
			(int) 47 => 'section 10',
			(int) 48 => 'section 17(2',
			(int) 49 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 50 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 51 => 'section 17(2',
			(int) 52 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 53 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 54 => 'section 264',
			(int) 55 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 56 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 57 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 58 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 59 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 60 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 61 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 62 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 63 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 64 => 'section 10(14)(i).7',
			(int) 65 => 'the Income Tax Act',
			(int) 66 => 'section 1922 Act',
			(int) 67 => 'Income Tax Act',
			(int) 68 => 'section 297(2)(k',
			(int) 69 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 70 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 71 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 72 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 73 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 74 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 75 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 76 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 77 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 78 => 'section 264',
			(int) 79 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 80 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 81 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 82 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 83 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 84 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 85 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 86 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 87 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 88 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 89 => 'section 234A',
			(int) 90 => 'section 234A of the Act',
			(int) 91 => 'section 234A'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Gupta',
			(int) 1 => 'Priti',
			(int) 2 => 'V.K. Verma',
			(int) 3 => 'Harminder',
			(int) 4 => 'V.K. Verma',
			(int) 5 => 'Bench',
			(int) 6 => 'K.P. Singh',
			(int) 7 => 'V.K. Verma v. Asstt',
			(int) 8 => 'Harminder Singh v. Income-tax Officer',
			(int) 9 => 'V.K. Verma v. ITO',
			(int) 10 => 'U.A. Joglekar',
			(int) 11 => 'Shailaja Ramamurthy',
			(int) 12 => 'Neo Poly Pack Pvt',
			(int) 13 => 'Notification Nos',
			(int) 14 => 'Harminder Singh',
			(int) 15 => 'Harminder Singh',
			(int) 16 => 'Harminder Singhs',
			(int) 17 => 'Harminder Singhs',
			(int) 18 => 'Harminder Singh',
			(int) 19 => 'Bench',
			(int) 20 => 'V.K. Verma',
			(int) 21 => 'Bench',
			(int) 22 => 'Harminder Singh',
			(int) 23 => 'V.K. Verma',
			(int) 24 => 'V.K. Vermas',
			(int) 25 => 'Harminder Singh',
			(int) 26 => 'Vermas',
			(int) 27 => 'Bench',
			(int) 28 => 'Harminder Singhs',
			(int) 29 => 'V.K. Verma',
			(int) 30 => 'Harminder Singh',
			(int) 31 => 'Bench',
			(int) 32 => 'Madanlal Mohanlal Narang',
			(int) 33 => 'Madanlal Mohanlal Narang v. Assn',
			(int) 34 => 'Tejaji Frasaram Kharwalla v.',
			(int) 35 => 'Lordships',
			(int) 36 => 'Tejaji Frasaram Kharwalla',
			(int) 37 => 'Bench',
			(int) 38 => 'above.30',
			(int) 39 => 'Rs',
			(int) 40 => 'Harminder Singhs',
			(int) 41 => 'K.P. Singh v. Asstt',
			(int) 42 => 'Madanlal Mohan',
			(int) 43 => 'Narangv',
			(int) 44 => 'K.P. Singh v. CIT',
			(int) 45 => 'Bench',
			(int) 46 => 'K.P. Singh',
			(int) 47 => 'K.P. Singh',
			(int) 48 => 'K.P. Singh',
			(int) 49 => 'Rs',
			(int) 50 => 'Benches of',
			(int) 51 => 'EB Karadia',
			(int) 52 => 'Priti Pithawala',
			(int) 53 => 'Mum',
			(int) 54 => 'Nupur Rohinda',
			(int) 55 => 'F.S. Vajifdar',
			(int) 56 => 'Sidha Salian',
			(int) 57 => 'A.K. Munial',
			(int) 58 => 'Priti',
			(int) 59 => 'Taxman',
			(int) 60 => 'Mag',
			(int) 61 => 'Benches'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Indian Airlines Ltd.',
			(int) 1 => 'the Income-Tax Act',
			(int) 2 => 'Indian Airlines',
			(int) 3 => 'S.0.143(E',
			(int) 4 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
			(int) 5 => 'S.0.143(E',
			(int) 6 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
			(int) 7 => 'Pithawala v. ITO',
			(int) 8 => 'ITA No',
			(int) 9 => 'the Income-Tax Act',
			(int) 10 => 'Income-Tax (Appeals',
			(int) 11 => 'Income-Tax (Appeals',
			(int) 12 => 'Income-Tax (Appeals',
			(int) 13 => 'Income-Tax (Appeals',
			(int) 14 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 15 => 'Asstt',
			(int) 16 => 'CIT',
			(int) 17 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 18 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 19 => 'CIT',
			(int) 20 => 'inter alia',
			(int) 21 => 'Air India Limited',
			(int) 22 => 'ITD',
			(int) 23 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
			(int) 24 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
			(int) 25 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
			(int) 26 => 'the Delhi Bench',
			(int) 27 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 28 => 'ITA No',
			(int) 29 => 'The Commissioner (Appeals',
			(int) 30 => 'the Income-Tax Act',
			(int) 31 => 'the Income-Tax Act',
			(int) 32 => 'the Income-Tax Act',
			(int) 33 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
			(int) 34 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
			(int) 35 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
			(int) 36 => 'The Commissioner (Appeals',
			(int) 37 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
			(int) 38 => 'Income-Tax',
			(int) 39 => 'inter alia',
			(int) 40 => 'Indian Airlines',
			(int) 41 => 'the Income-Tax Act',
			(int) 42 => 'The Commissioner (Appeals',
			(int) 43 => 'Indian Airlines',
			(int) 44 => 'Indian Airlines',
			(int) 45 => 'Appellate',
			(int) 46 => 'Union of India',
			(int) 47 => 'Honble Supreme Court',
			(int) 48 => 'the Honble Supreme Court',
			(int) 49 => 'Berger Paints India Limited',
			(int) 50 => 'the Honble Delhi High Court',
			(int) 51 => 'CWT v. RKKR Industries Private Limited 198',
			(int) 52 => 'CTR',
			(int) 53 => 'CIT',
			(int) 54 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 55 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 56 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 57 => 'the Administrative Commissioners',
			(int) 58 => 'the Tribunal in Capt',
			(int) 59 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 60 => 'Harminder Singhs',
			(int) 61 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 62 => 'Board',
			(int) 63 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
			(int) 64 => 'inter alia',
			(int) 65 => 'Commissioner (Appeals',
			(int) 66 => 'Neeta Kulkarni',
			(int) 67 => 'CIT',
			(int) 68 => 'XXVII/ITO',
			(int) 69 => 'AR',
			(int) 70 => 'the CIT (Appeals',
			(int) 71 => 'AR',
			(int) 72 => 'Indian Airlines',
			(int) 73 => 'AR',
			(int) 74 => 'CBDT',
			(int) 75 => 'AR',
			(int) 76 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
			(int) 77 => 'the Tribunal in Capt',
			(int) 78 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 79 => 'the Administrative Commission',
			(int) 80 => 'Extent',
			(int) 81 => 'State',
			(int) 82 => 'continental',
			(int) 83 => 'Remote Locality Allowance',
			(int) 84 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 85 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
			(int) 86 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 87 => 'Corporation of India',
			(int) 88 => 'CIT',
			(int) 89 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 90 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
			(int) 91 => 'the Indian Income-Tax Act',
			(int) 92 => 'Honble Bombay High Courts',
			(int) 93 => 'the Honble Supreme Court',
			(int) 94 => 'CIT',
			(int) 95 => 'the Central Board of Direct Taxes',
			(int) 96 => 'Income-Tax Act',
			(int) 97 => 'the Government of India',
			(int) 98 => 'Ministry of External Affairs',
			(int) 99 => 'Government',
			(int) 100 => 'Government',
			(int) 101 => 'Government',
			(int) 102 => 'Learned Departmental Representative',
			(int) 103 => 'Departmental Representative',
			(int) 104 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 105 => 'the Government of India',
			(int) 106 => 'Government',
			(int) 107 => 'the Government of India',
			(int) 108 => 'the Government of India',
			(int) 109 => 'Government',
			(int) 110 => 'the Government of India',
			(int) 111 => 'The Commissioner (Appeals',
			(int) 112 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
			(int) 113 => 'Administrative',
			(int) 114 => 'CIT',
			(int) 115 => 'Asstt',
			(int) 116 => 'CIT',
			(int) 117 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 118 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 119 => 'the Government of India',
			(int) 120 => 'the Government of India',
			(int) 121 => 'the Government of India',
			(int) 122 => 'Government',
			(int) 123 => 'Air India Limited',
			(int) 124 => 'the Government of India',
			(int) 125 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 126 => 'ITO',
			(int) 127 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 128 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 129 => 'Pithawala v. ITO',
			(int) 130 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1961',
			(int) 1 => '1990-91',
			(int) 2 => 'S.O. 143(E',
			(int) 3 => 'previous year',
			(int) 4 => '63 82',
			(int) 5 => 'two years',
			(int) 6 => 'the assessment year 1997-98',
			(int) 7 => 'daily',
			(int) 8 => '78',
			(int) 9 => '1992',
			(int) 10 => '5876',
			(int) 11 => 'previous year',
			(int) 12 => '75 per day',
			(int) 13 => '30-5-2003',
			(int) 14 => 'the assessment year 1994-95',
			(int) 15 => '1989',
			(int) 16 => 'years 1995-96',
			(int) 17 => '1996-97',
			(int) 18 => '1992',
			(int) 19 => 'the year',
			(int) 20 => 'previous year',
			(int) 21 => '1993-94',
			(int) 22 => 'previous year',
			(int) 23 => '1,000 per month',
			(int) 24 => 'June',
			(int) 25 => 'the rest of',
			(int) 26 => 'nine months',
			(int) 27 => 'the assessment year 1993-94',
			(int) 28 => 'the assessment year 1997-98',
			(int) 29 => '11(3)/96/2001-02',
			(int) 30 => '1107',
			(int) 31 => 'S.O. 143(E',
			(int) 32 => 'a previous year',
			(int) 33 => 'daily',
			(int) 34 => 'daily',
			(int) 35 => 'daily',
			(int) 36 => 'daily',
			(int) 37 => 'daily',
			(int) 38 => 'Rule 2BB(1)(a',
			(int) 39 => '1,300 per month',
			(int) 40 => 'S.O. 143(E',
			(int) 41 => '180 days',
			(int) 42 => '8 days',
			(int) 43 => '2 1 st April, 2006',
			(int) 44 => '1005',
			(int) 45 => '1922',
			(int) 46 => '1955',
			(int) 47 => 'the assessment year 1955-56',
			(int) 48 => '1922',
			(int) 49 => '1922',
			(int) 50 => '1961',
			(int) 51 => 'daily',
			(int) 52 => 'daily',
			(int) 53 => 'daily',
			(int) 54 => 'daily',
			(int) 55 => 'daily',
			(int) 56 => 'daily',
			(int) 57 => 'daily',
			(int) 58 => 'a particular day',
			(int) 59 => 'daily',
			(int) 60 => 'daily',
			(int) 61 => 'daily',
			(int) 62 => 'a particular day',
			(int) 63 => 'daily',
			(int) 64 => '600 per day',
			(int) 65 => 'daily',
			(int) 66 => 'daily',
			(int) 67 => 'daily',
			(int) 68 => 'a particular day',
			(int) 69 => 'daily',
			(int) 70 => 'daily',
			(int) 71 => 'a day',
			(int) 72 => 'less than one day',
			(int) 73 => 'a particular day',
			(int) 74 => 'daily',
			(int) 75 => '600 per day',
			(int) 76 => 'less than one day',
			(int) 77 => 'two years',
			(int) 78 => '2003',
			(int) 79 => '2003',
			(int) 80 => '79'
		),
		'MONEY' => array(
			(int) 0 => '50 per cent',
			(int) 1 => '50 per cent',
			(int) 2 => '40',
			(int) 3 => '50 per cent',
			(int) 4 => '50 per cent',
			(int) 5 => '50 per cent',
			(int) 6 => '50 per cent',
			(int) 7 => '60 per cent',
			(int) 8 => '50 per cent',
			(int) 9 => '60 per cent',
			(int) 10 => '60 per cent',
			(int) 11 => '70 per cent',
			(int) 12 => '50 per cent',
			(int) 13 => '50 per cent',
			(int) 14 => '1922 Act',
			(int) 15 => '1922 Act and 1961 Act',
			(int) 16 => '$ 75AustriaUS $',
			(int) 17 => '$ 51CanadaUS $',
			(int) 18 => '54ChainaUS',
			(int) 19 => '75Hong',
			(int) 20 => '$ 75EthiopiaUS $',
			(int) 21 => '50IndonesiaUS',
			(int) 22 => '75KenyaUS',
			(int) 23 => '$ 50KoreaUS $',
			(int) 24 => '70KuwaitUS',
			(int) 25 => '75These',
			(int) 26 => '10 per cent',
			(int) 27 => '75',
			(int) 28 => '75',
			(int) 29 => 'between US $ 50 to US $ 75 per day',
			(int) 30 => 'minus 10 per cent',
			(int) 31 => '50 per cent',
			(int) 32 => '70 per cent'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '50,000',
			(int) 1 => '21',
			(int) 2 => '21',
			(int) 3 => '21',
			(int) 4 => 'one',
			(int) 5 => '12-3-2003',
			(int) 6 => '234(1',
			(int) 7 => '234A(3',
			(int) 8 => '50,000',
			(int) 9 => '24-8-2001',
			(int) 10 => '2',
			(int) 11 => '30-6-1997',
			(int) 12 => '3,82,184',
			(int) 13 => '3,82,184',
			(int) 14 => '3,82,184',
			(int) 15 => '62',
			(int) 16 => '144(E',
			(int) 17 => '21',
			(int) 18 => '1',
			(int) 19 => '3,000',
			(int) 20 => '30,000',
			(int) 21 => '36,000',
			(int) 22 => '3,000',
			(int) 23 => '32,97,850',
			(int) 24 => '3,000',
			(int) 25 => '2BB',
			(int) 26 => '50,000',
			(int) 27 => '50,000',
			(int) 28 => '600',
			(int) 29 => 'One',
			(int) 30 => '2',
			(int) 31 => '21',
			(int) 32 => '50,000....6',
			(int) 33 => '24',
			(int) 34 => '50,000',
			(int) 35 => '14-3-2002',
			(int) 36 => '50,000',
			(int) 37 => '16',
			(int) 38 => '2001]249ITR219(SC',
			(int) 39 => 'one',
			(int) 40 => '2004]266ITR99(SC',
			(int) 41 => '2000]245ITR492(Delhi',
			(int) 42 => 'one',
			(int) 43 => '21',
			(int) 44 => '1',
			(int) 45 => '30,000',
			(int) 46 => '3,000',
			(int) 47 => '36,000',
			(int) 48 => '30,000',
			(int) 49 => '3,000',
			(int) 50 => '1,000',
			(int) 51 => '3 plus Rs',
			(int) 52 => '3,000',
			(int) 53 => '9',
			(int) 54 => '30,000',
			(int) 55 => '144(E',
			(int) 56 => '21',
			(int) 57 => '1',
			(int) 58 => '1',
			(int) 59 => '144(E',
			(int) 60 => '22-8-2001',
			(int) 61 => '19-12-2001',
			(int) 62 => '28',
			(int) 63 => '5',
			(int) 64 => '30-3-1990',
			(int) 65 => '10',
			(int) 66 => '14',
			(int) 67 => '2',
			(int) 68 => '2BB',
			(int) 69 => '1',
			(int) 70 => '14',
			(int) 71 => 'one',
			(int) 72 => '3,000',
			(int) 73 => 'one',
			(int) 74 => '3,000',
			(int) 75 => '2BB(1)(b)-of',
			(int) 76 => '3',
			(int) 77 => 'one',
			(int) 78 => '2BB(2)(2',
			(int) 79 => 'two',
			(int) 80 => 'one',
			(int) 81 => '2BB(1)(a',
			(int) 82 => '50,000',
			(int) 83 => '50,000',
			(int) 84 => '50,000',
			(int) 85 => 'one',
			(int) 86 => '101',
			(int) 87 => '6',
			(int) 88 => '1-4-1955',
			(int) 89 => '1948]16ITR260(Bom',
			(int) 90 => '1968]67ITR95(SC',
			(int) 91 => '1-4-1955',
			(int) 92 => '1',
			(int) 93 => '28-3-1995',
			(int) 94 => 'five',
			(int) 95 => '600',
			(int) 96 => '600',
			(int) 97 => 'two',
			(int) 98 => '600',
			(int) 99 => '50,000',
			(int) 100 => '144(E',
			(int) 101 => '4',
			(int) 102 => '1,000',
			(int) 103 => '144(E',
			(int) 104 => '600',
			(int) 105 => '600',
			(int) 106 => '420',
			(int) 107 => '4 to 23',
			(int) 108 => '129',
			(int) 109 => '129'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Mumbai',
			(int) 1 => 'Mumbai',
			(int) 2 => 'Delhi',
			(int) 3 => 'Mumbai',
			(int) 4 => 'assessee',
			(int) 5 => 'India',
			(int) 6 => 'India',
			(int) 7 => 'India',
			(int) 8 => 'US',
			(int) 9 => 'India',
			(int) 10 => 'India',
			(int) 11 => 'New Delhi',
			(int) 12 => 'India',
			(int) 13 => 'India',
			(int) 14 => 'India',
			(int) 15 => 'India',
			(int) 16 => 'XXVII',
			(int) 17 => 'Mumbai',
			(int) 18 => 'Mumbai',
			(int) 19 => 'India',
			(int) 20 => 'India',
			(int) 21 => 'India',
			(int) 22 => 'India',
			(int) 23 => 'India',
			(int) 24 => 'Mumbai',
			(int) 25 => 'London',
			(int) 26 => 'Mumbai',
			(int) 27 => 'India',
			(int) 28 => 'States',
			(int) 29 => 'Mumbai',
			(int) 30 => 'New Delhi',
			(int) 31 => 'New Delhi',
			(int) 32 => 'New Delhi',
			(int) 33 => 'New Delhi',
			(int) 34 => 'New Delhi',
			(int) 35 => 'New Delhi',
			(int) 36 => 'New Delhi',
			(int) 37 => 'India',
			(int) 38 => 'US',
			(int) 39 => 'US',
			(int) 40 => 'India',
			(int) 41 => 'India',
			(int) 42 => 'India',
			(int) 43 => 'India',
			(int) 44 => 'India',
			(int) 45 => 'India',
			(int) 46 => 'India',
			(int) 47 => 'India',
			(int) 48 => 'India',
			(int) 49 => 'India'
		),
		'EVENT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'SO 487(E',
			(int) 1 => 'US Dollars',
			(int) 2 => 'SO 487(E',
			(int) 3 => 'SO 487(E',
			(int) 4 => 'Edition - Page 1.130It'
		),
		'LOC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Harminder Singhs',
			(int) 1 => 'Nicobar Island',
			(int) 2 => 'Nicobar Island'
		),
		'QUANTITY' => array(
			(int) 0 => '20-2-2002'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'ITAT',
			(int) 1 => 'Indian',
			(int) 2 => 'allowance4.Any',
			(int) 3 => 'Indian'
		),
		'TIME' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'overnight',
			(int) 1 => 'overnight',
			(int) 2 => 'hourly',
			(int) 3 => 'more than 12 hours',
			(int) 4 => '6 hours',
			(int) 5 => 'less than 12 hours',
			(int) 6 => '6 hours'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'first'
		),
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Madanlal Mohanlal Narang'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '367002',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'It Appeal No. 6023 (Mum.) of 2003 C.O. No. 135 (Mum.) of 2006 ,  A.Y. 1990-91 ,  23 June 2006',
			'appellant' => 'ito, Ward 27(1)(3), Mumbai',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'ito, Ward 27(1)(3), Mumbai Vs. Capt. H.R. Vinayak',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 34: [D.K. Deshmukh, S.J. Vazifdar & J.P. Devadhar, JJ] Court fee on Petition under Section 34 of the Act  Bombay Court Fees Act (36 of 1959), Schedule I, Article 3, Schedule II, Article 1(f)(iii)  Held, According to Article 3 of Schedule I, on any plaint, application or petition or memorandum of appeal for setting aside or modifying an award, same court fee is payable as is payable on a plaint or memorandum of appeal under Article 1. Thus, when an award is challenged by a plaint, application, petition or memorandum of appeal, court fee is payable on ad valorem basis. But from this requirement of payment of court fee on ad valorem basis, Article 3 excludes an application or petition or memorandum of appeal filed in civil or revenue Court challenging any award made under the Arbitration Act, 1940.Thus, the provisions of Article 3 of Schedule 1 do not apply when an application is filed or appeal is filed challenging an award made under the Arbitration Act, 1940. Thus the provisions of Article 3 of Schedule I do not apply when an application is filed challenging an award made under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The question, therefore, that arises for consideration is whether reference to the provisions of 1940 Act found in Article 3 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act can be said to include reference to the 1996 Act. Perusal of the provisions of Section 8 of General Clauses Act shows that where by a Central enactment any provision of a former enactment is repealed and re-enacted with or without modification then reference in any other enactment to the provisions so repealed shall, unless a different intention appears, be construed as references to the provisions so re-enacted.  In the present case, it is common ground that the former enactment is the 1940 Act, the new enactment is the 1996 Act and any other enactment is the Bombay Court fees Act, the only provision of the 1940 Act referred to in Article 3 of Schedule 1 of the Bombay Court Fees Act is the provisions of Section 33 of the 1940Act and  bare comparison of that provision with the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the 1996 Act shows that the provision of Section 33 of 1940 Act is repealed and re-enacted in sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the 1996 Act with slight modification. Therefore, reference to the provisions of Section 33 of the 1940 Act in Article 3 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Court Fees Act has to be construed, in view of the provisions of Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, as reference to the provisions of Section 34 of the 1996 Act. So far as an appeal filed under Section 37 of the 1996 Act is concerned, perusal of Section 37 shows that an appeal is provided to the appellate Court against an order setting aside an arbitral award or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34. Thus, as the provisions of Article 3 of Schedule-I do not apply to an application or petition filed under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, they will also not apply to the memorandum of appeal filed to set aside or modify an award made by the Arbitrator under the 1996 Act. In other words nothing contained in Article 3 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Court Fees Act applies to an application, petition or memorandum of appeal to set aside or modify any Award made under the 1996 Act as it does not apply to an application or petition or memorandum of appeal to set aside or modify an Award made under the Arbitration Act, 1940. Perusal of the provisions of Section 8 of the General Clauses Act shows that references in any other enactment to a provision in a former enactment is to be construed as reference to re-enacted provision in the new enactment unless a different intention appears. The different intention may appear either in the new enactment or in the other enactment. Nothing was pointed out either in the 1996 Act or in the Bombay Court Fees Act which can be construed as a different intention or which will show that it was not the intention of the Maharashtra legislature to exclude an application or petition or memorandum of appeal filed in Court to set aside or modify an award made under the 1996 Act, from the provisions of Article 3 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Court Fees Act. It appears that the intention behind excluding an application made, challenging the Award made under the 1940 Act, from requirement of payment of ad valorem Court fee which is required to be paid if the same litigant filed a suit on the same subject matter, was to encourage a litigant to go for arbitration instead of filing a suit. Nothing has been pointed out to show that ther4e is any change in that legislative policy. On the contrary, from the preamble of the 1996 Act it is clear that the policy of the legislature is to encourage people to adopt the mode of arbitration for resolving disputes. Article 3 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Court Fees Act does not apply to a petition,  application or memorandum of appeal filed for challenging an Award made under the 1996 Act, and Court fee on a petition filed under Section 34 of the 1996 Act challenging an Award in High Court is payable according to Article 1(f)(iii) of Schedule II. 

Section 37: [D.K. Deshmukh, S.J. Vazifdar & J.P. Devadhar, JJ] Court fee on Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Held, Court fee is payable according to Article 13 of Schedule II of the Bombay Court Fees Act.

Schedule I, Article 3 & Schedule II, Article 1(f)(iii): [D.K. Deshmukh, S.J. Vazifdar & J.P. Devadhar, JJ] Court fee on Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Held, When a Petition under Section 34 is to be filed before a Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction which is not a High Court, the question arises which Article of either First Schedule or Second Schedule would apply. In so far as the challenge to an Award made under the 1940 Act is concerned, an application under Section 33 of that Act could be made to a Civil Court and therefore, payment of Court fee was governed by Article 1(a) of Schedule II. This was so because the application was to be presented to the Court of Civil Judge which was not a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. But now because of change of definition of term Court in the 1996 Act, a petition has to be presented, challenging an Award made under the 1996 Act in terms of the provisions of Section 34 thereof, before the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. No entry either in the first Schedule or in the Second Schedule was pointed out which applies to an application or petition to be made before the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, and therefore, when a litigant wants to file petition before a Principal Civil Court having original jurisdiction which is not High Court, challenging an Award made under the 1996 Act, no court fee under Bombay Court Fees Act is payable because of absence of a general or specific provision. Therefore, it can be said that no Court  fee under the Bombay Court Fees Act is payable when a petition under Section 34 challenging an Award is filed before any Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction which is not High Court. 

Schedule II, Article 13: [D.K. Deshmukh, S.J. Vazifdar & J.P. Devadhar, JJ] Court fee on Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Held, Court fee is payable according to Article 13 of Schedule II of the Bombay Court Fees Act. -  In the said case, we have, inter alia, observed as follows :2. The factual matrix giving rise to this litigation before us is like this. None of the parties is satisfied with this order. 9. There are, however, other reasons for rejecting revenues grievance on merits as well. Harminder Singh (supra) is now good in law, particularly after Tribunals subsequent order in the case of Capt. It is interesting to note that the Tribunal in Capt. 17. As for the nature of allowance which are exempt under section 10(14)(ii), in terms of plain words of the statutory provisions under that section, the following conditions are required to be satisfied :the allowance should be granted to meet personal expenses of the assessee or to compensate him for the increased cost of living; Once the above conditions, as laid down under the statute are satisfied, the exemption is available in respect of the allowance granted to an assessee working in any transport system and to meet personal expenses of such assessee during the course of running of such transport from one place to another; To that extent, the legal position, on the facts of the case before us and in the light of developments which have been taken note of hereinabove, is that the exemption under section 10(14)(1) is also available for allowances granted to the assessee in respect of tours of the assessee to domestic destinations as well, and that section 10(14)(ii) cannot be said to have any application in respect of such allowances. CIT (101 TTJ 1005), the Tribunal, inter ali,4 observed as follows :6. We find that the basic reason of declining the exemption claimed by the assessee is that the authorities below are not satisfied about evidence of the assessee having actually spent the amount allowance for the purposes for which the same were granted. 8. The above circular was undoubtedly issued under the Income Tax Act, 1922 but then all the circulars issued under section 1922 Act, do not cease to hold good in law. In other words, to the extent the legal provisions of 1922 Act and 1961 Act are in pari materia, circulars and instructions issued under the 1922 Act will also hold good. The circular in view of the provisions of section 297(2)(k) it still holds good and continued to be in force. , to the extent to which such expenses are actually incurred being absolutely identical in both the Acts, the provisions of the above circular, in our humble understanding, apply under the 1961 Act as well. 144(E), or the corresponding rule, but then, as revenue itself has accepted applicability of section 10(14)(1) in respect of allowances drawn for travelling abroad in connection with the flying duties, there cannot be any good reason to decline exemption under section 10(14)(1) in respect of allowances paid for travelling within India. Once exemption under section 10(14)(1) is available in respect of these allowances, the same allowances cannot be subject-matter of exemption under section 10(14)(ii) as well. In these circumstances, and particularly bearing in mind the fact that revenue itself has now accepted that exemption under section 10(14)(1) is to be given for the allowances in connection with visits abroad, are of the view that the exemption of these allowances is to be granted under section 10(14)(i) for travelling within India as well. We, therefore, confirm the action of the Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard as well, and decline to interfere on this count as well.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '  Ajay, <i>for the Assessee</i> , 
 Rajnish Agarwal, <i>for the Revenue</i>.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-06-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => '',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">G.C. Gupta, J.M.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The short issue requiring our adjudication in this case is whether or not the allowances received by the assessee - who is a commercial pilot working for Indian Airlines Ltd. while he is away from his normal place of duty in connection with the flying duties, are exempt under section 10(14)(i) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, and if these are held to be exempt, to what extent exemption under section 10(14)(1) can be granted in the absence of actual evidence of expenditure incurred by the assessee.<p style="text-align: justify;">2. The assessment year involved in this appeal is 1990-91 and the assessment order in question is framed under section 144 read with section 147(a) of the Act.<p style="text-align: justify;">3. Grounds of appeal as taken by the revenue are as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in directing the assessing officer to allow exemption of allowances received on duty abroad under section 10(14)(ii) to the extent of 50 per cent of the allowances or Rs. 50,000 whichever is less, because of the following reasons :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) The assessee being an Indian Airlines on board crew, it cannot be said that the journey performed on board on trips abroad is same as journey performed on tour, so as to come within the ambit of clause (b) of Notification No. S.0.143(E), dated 21-2-1989.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Clause (b) of Notification No. S.O. 143(E), dated 21-2-1989 is not applicable to the facts of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Without prejudice to (i) and (ii) above, the assessee has produced no evidence, whatsoever either before the assessing officer or before the Commissioner (Appeals) to prove that the assessee, in fact had performed journey to foreign stations during the relevant previous year and incurred any expenditure on these hypothetical journey abroad.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The specific provision contained in clause (4) of Notification No. S.0.143(E), dated 21-2-1989 regarding any allowance granted to an employee working in any transport system to meet his personal expenditure during his duty performed in the course of running such transport from one place to another place, is applicable to the facts of this case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in setting aside the issue of charging interest under section 234 relying on the decision of Honble ITAT, Mumbai, in the case of Ms. Priti Pithawala v. ITO in ITA No. 63 82 /Mum. /2002, dated 12-3-2003 and has further erred in directing the assessing officer to calculate the interest under section 234A only for a limited period of two years for the following reasons :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) In the present case, no return of income was filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) In the present case, provisions of section 234(1)(b) is applicable and hence interest under section 234A is chargeable for the period commencing from the date immediately following the due date and ending with the date of completion of the assessment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this case, interest under section 234A has been correctly charged from the due date as per provisions of sections 234(1) and 234A(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.'<p style="text-align: justify;">4. The grounds of cross objection, as set out in the memorandum of cross objection filed by the assessee, are as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in directing the assessing officer to allow deduction under section 10(14)(i) of 50 per cent in respect of allowances received by the respondent while on international duty subject to maximum of Rs. 50,000 by ignoring the fact that the entire allowances received are exempt under section 10(14)(i) read with rules and notifications thereon.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in restricting the deduction as above especially in the light of the decision of Honble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Capt. V.K. Verma (ITA No. 5875/Delhi/96) in which the Honble Members in their order dated 24-8-2001 stated that the applicability of provisions of section 10(14)(i) was not examined by the Honble Members of ITAT, Delhi while deciding the case of Capt. Harminder Singh.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in not appreciating the fact that once the Honble ITAT, Mumbai has given directions to examine the deduction of various allowances under section 10(14)(i) in the case of Capt. V.K. Verma and the department has accordingly allowed part of the allowance as deduction under section 10(14)(i) read with rules and notifications thereon, there was no room for restricting the deduction which should be allowed in full.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in restricting the deduction as above without appreciating the fact that even under the amended provisions the exemption is allowable to the extent the same were used for the purpose for which the same were granted and the amendment did not vest the assessing officer powers to call for details of factual expenditure.'<p style="text-align: justify;">5. A materially identical issue came up for consideration before a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Capt. K.P. Singh, and vice versa. In the said case, the Tribunal has, inter alia, has held that in the light of the subsequent judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Capt. V.K. Verma v. Asstt. CIT and vice versa. In the said case, we have, inter alia, observed as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'2. The factual matrix giving rise to this litigation before us is like this. The assessee before us is a commercial pilot working for Air India Limited. On 30-6-1997, the assessee filed his income-tax return for the assessment year 1997-98 declaring income of Rs. 29,45,670. This return was processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Act, and the income so returned by the assessee was duly accepted. Subsequently, however, the assessing officer noticed that the assessee had claimed a deduction of Rs. 3,82,184 under section 10(14) and the same was not considered by the employer at the time of deducting tax at source. In other words, this claim of deduction of Rs. 3,82,184 was over and above the exemption granted by the employer, while estimating income chargeable to tax, for the purpose of computing tax deduction at source. It was in this backdrop that the case of the assessee was reopened and the assessee was called upon to substantiate the claim of exemption of Rs. 3,82,184. During the course of the ensuing assessment proceedings, the assessing officer took note of assessees contention that the employer only provides for hotel and breakfast, during assessees stay abroad, and rest of the expenses are to be borne out of the allowances granted by the employer. It was also noted that several allowances have been merged into a consolidated flying allowance, and thus, a portion of the allowance so paid everyday represents daily allowance for meals and other expenses incurred by the assessee on account of absence from normal place of duty. The Assessing Officer was, however, of the view that in the light of the Tribunals judgment in the case of Capt. Harminder Singh v. Income-tax Officer (62 ITD 78 Delhi) and in the light of notification numbers SO 144(E), dated 21-2-1989 and SO 487(E), dated 1-7-1992, exemption has to be allowed under section 10(14)(ii) and up to the extent of Rs. 3,000 per month. Accordingly, the assessing officer restricted the exemption, to the extent of Rs. 30,000, though it should have been, even as per this line of reasoning, Rs. 36,000 computed by taking Rs. 3,000 per month under section 10(14)(ii). Exemption was declined on the balance amount, and the income was thus assessed at Rs. 32,97,850. Aggrieved by the stand so taken by the assessing officer, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) took the view that so far as the allowances in respect of flights in India is concerned, the assessing officer was in deed justified in holding that the exemption is to be granted under section 10(14)(ii) and is to restricted to Rs. 3,000 per month. However, as regards the exemption in respect of the same allowances, so far as international flights are concerned, the Commissioner (Appeals) was of the view that the provisions of section 10(14)(i) will come into play. In coming to this conclusion, the Commissioner (Appeals) was also guided by observations made by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of Capt. V.K. Verma v. ITO and vice versa (ITA No. 5876/Delhi/96 and ITA No. 1493/Delhi/97). The Commissioner (Appeals) thereafter proceeded to observe as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Since section 140(14)(ii) read with rule 2BB covers only the situation where the allowances are received in India, therefore, the allowances received for flights operated outside India are to be brought with the scope of section 10(14)(1) of the Income-Tax Act. The said section has not prescribed any limit and was further limited the deduction to the extent such allowances are actually incurred for the purpose. Therefore, I hold that the appellant is entitled to relief under section 10(14)(i) of the Income-Tax Act and the expenses claimed by the appellant should have been incurred abroad and will have to be allowed under section 10(14)(i) of the Income-Tax Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Having so upheld the contention of the assessee in principle, however, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the assessee has not been able to furnish the copies of bills and vouchers for the actual expenses incurred abroad on lunch, dinner and other daily expenses. As to assessees contention that it was not possible to keep meticulous record of all such expenditure, the Commissioner (Appeals) added that 'I am unable to agree with the contention of the appellant for the simple reason that the expenditure has been claimed by the appellant on actual basis and therefore it is the duty of the appellant to prove the expenditure by leading necessary evidence'. A copy of dinner bill showing expenditure of US $ 40 on a single dinner was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that it did not pertain to the relevant previous year. The Commissioner (Appeals) then concluded that in the absence of any other evidence of actual expenditure, the assessee should be entitled deduction to the extent of 50 per cent of allowances received, or Rs. 50,000 whichever is less. In the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), thus, it has been held that the allowances are exempt under section 10(14)(1) of the Act, but, in the absence of evidence of actual expenditure, the CIT(A) has restricted the exemption to 50 per cent of the allowances granted to the assessee, or Rs. 50,000 - whichever is less. None of the parties is satisfied with this order. Revenue is aggrieved of CIT(A)s 'Allowing the allowances for flights received for flights abroad, operated outside India, under section 10(14)(i) on estimate basis for want of proof of expenses actually incurred which was not at all considered at the time of original assessment by the assessing officer'. Assessees grievance, on the other hand, is that his claim for exemption should be allowed in entirety which he has claimed at the rate of US Dollars 75 per day when he goes on duties outside India, and at the rate of Rs. 600 per day when he is outside his base in India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We have heard the rival contentions, perused material on record any duly considered factual matrix of the case as also the applicable legal position.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. One of the documents sighted before us, during the course of this hearing, was a revision order under section 264 dated 30-5-2003 in the case of Capt. U.A. Joglekar, passed by the very Commissioner of Income-Tax who has signed the authorisation memo dated 2-7-2003 for filing of this appeal before us. In this revision order, the Commissioner has, inter alia, observed as follows :.The assessee has, in this case, moved a petition under section 264 for the assessment year 1994-95 with regard to claim of exemption under section 10(14)(1) of the Income-tax Act. It was contended that this claim has not been allowed by the assessing officer in the course of the assessment. The assessees claim relates to the exemption under section 10(14)(i) read with notification made therein in respect of various allowances received while operating international flights. These allowances are received in local currency at the foreign station and, therefore, covered by the provisions of section 10(14)(1) and notification issued thereunder. Clause (b) of relevant Notification No. SO 143(E), dated 21-2-1989 reads as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'any allowance, whether granted on tour or for the period of journey in connection with transfer, to meet the ordinary daily charges incurred by an employee on account of absence from its normal place of duty'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">As per this notification, while deliberating on this issue, concurring with the view of my predecessor in a similar order... in the case of Ms. Shailaja Ramamurthy, I am of the opinion that the allowances paid outside the country, to the employees of Indian Airlines are within the scope of section 10(14)(1) and accordingly, in the absence of the evidence, 50 per cent of the expenditure so incurred should be allowed as deduction, limited to Rs. 50,000....<p style="text-align: justify;">6. The revision order dated 24-5-2002 passed by his predecessor, which has been referred to and concurred with in this order, is also relevant in this context. The said order reads as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The assessee has, in this case, moved a petition under section 264 for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 with regard to claim of exemption under section 10(14)(1) of the Income-Tax Act. It was contended that this claim has not been allowed by the assessing officer in the course of assessments. A reference in this connection was made by the authorised representative earlier on seeking clarification pertaining to the claim under section 10(14)(1). The Commissioner (Appeals) while deliberating on this issue, had also opined that the allowances paid outside the country to the employees of Indian Airlines are within scope of section 10(14)(i). Accordingly, an instruction of advisory nature was issued to the assessing officers stating that in the absence of evidence, 50 per cent of the expenditure so incurred should be allowed limited to Rs. 50,000. It would be significant to state that assessing officers in New Delhi have allowed the claim by restricting it to 60 per cent of the foreign allowance. Relevant portion of my instruction dated 14-3-2002 is cited below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I am of the opinion that in the cases pertaining to this charge, we may allow expenditure of 50 per cent which appears to be reasonable. This will only be with regard to the allowance paid on food, beverage, telephone and transportation. The claim of exemption will not be applicable for any other allowances which cannot be construed as f falling within the ambit of section 10(14)(i) as these are not paid to meet ordinary daily charges incurred by the employee on account of absence from his normal place of duty. This expenditure should, however, be limited to Rs. 50,000 only.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Further the assessing officers should substitute the allowance incorporated in the assessment order with the allowances indicated by Indian Airlines authorities, if required, and should also substitute salary as per Form No. 16 as against the estimated salary.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Accordingly, the assessing officer is directed to allow the assessees claim under section 10(14)(1) as per the above instruction.<p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is thus clear that the revenue itself has taken a stand that so far as international flights are concerned, the provisions of exemption under section 10(14)(i) are applicable, and that the assessee-pilot is entitled to exemption under section 10(14)(i) in respect of the same. The very Commissioner who challenges the impugned order, passed by the CIT(A) holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 10(14)(1) in respect of allowances received for international flights, has himself allowed the same exemption. It is difficult to reconcile between Commissioners giving the relief of exemption under section 10(14)(i), by exercising his revision powers under section 264, and the same Commissioners authorising filing of an appeal against an Appellate Commissioner granting absolutely identical relief by way of an appellate order.<p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the case of Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal : [2001]249ITR219(SC) , Honble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider whether it is open to revenue to accept a judgment in the case of one assessee, and appeal, against the identical judgment in the case of another. Their Lordships held that such a differential treatment on the same set of facts was not permissible in law, and observed that, 'It is not open to revenue to accept the judgment in the case of the assessee in that case and challenge its correctness in the case of another assessee, without just cause.' The same view was reiterated by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Berger Paints India Limited v. CIT : [2004]266ITR99(SC) , and followed by the Honble Delhi High Court in the cases of CWT v. RKKR Industries Private Limited 198 CTR 567 and CIT v. Neo Poly Pack Pvt. Ltd. : [2000]245ITR492(Delhi) . When it is not possible for the revenue to challenge an order of the appellate authority in one case and when it has accepted identical order of the appellate authority in another case, it cannot at all be open to the revenue to challenge the order of the appellate authority on an issue on which relief has been given by Commissioner himself, in other cases, by way of exercising revision jurisdiction in other cases. For this reason alone, the grievance raised by the revenue is not maintainable in law and deserves to be rejected in limine.<p style="text-align: justify;">9. There are, however, other reasons for rejecting revenues grievance on merits as well.<p style="text-align: justify;">10. It is important to appreciate that the sole and immediate reason of rejecting assessees claim for exemption under section 10(14)(1) is revenues reliance on applicability of section 10(14)(ii) read with Notification Nos. SO 144(E), dated 21-2-1989 and SO 487(E), dated 1-7-1992, as also Tribunals judgment in the case of Capt. Harminder Singh (supra). The fact that assessing officer has, without any application of mind, blindly followed Tribunals judgment in the case of Capt. Harminder Singh (supra), is also evident from assessing officers allowing exemption under section 10(14)(ii) only to the extent of Rs. 30,000 for the year, whereas, even as per applicable limit for the relevant previous year, that is at the rate of Rs. 3,000 the correct figure should have been Rs. 36,000. The apparent reason is that in Capt. Harminder Singhs case (supra), Tribunal had allowed exemption to the extent of Rs. 30,000 but then the assessment year involved in that case was 1993-94, and for the relevant previous year, the applicable limit was Rs. 1,000 per month till June, and for the rest of nine months the applicable limit was enhanced to Rs. 3,000 per month. That is how, i.e. Rs. 1,000 multiplied with 3 plus Rs. 3,000 multiplied with 9, the figure of Rs. 30,000 applied for the assessment year 1993-94. Yet, the Assessing Officer has adopted the same for the assessment year 1997-98 also. As for the reliance on notification numbers SO 144(E), dated 21-2-1989 and SO 487(E), dated 1-7-1992, these notifications ceased to be relevant after amendment of section 10(14) with effect from 1-7-1995. These things, as we pointed out, only show-how thoughtlessly the impugned assessment order is passed. It is also important to bear in mind the fact that in Capt. Harminder Singhs case (supra), the assessee was working on domestic sectors and it was for this reason that the Tribunal came to the conclusion that old notification SO 144(E), as it was then in force, applied. This notification admittedly applies to 'whole of India' only, and not beyond that. The exemption under section 10(14)(ii) is thus, even as per the revenue, available only in India and not outside India. In the present case, the exemption under section 10(14)(1) has been declined only on the ground that exemption under section 10(14)(ii) is available. Therefore, even going by the logic of the assessing officer, exemption under section 10(14)(i) cannot be declined because, assessee, while flying on international sectors, cannot be allowed exemption under section 10(14)(ii). This stand, even after taking note of Tribunals decision in the case of Capt. Harminder Singh (supra), has not only been approved by another Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Capt. V.K. Verma (supra) but has also been followed by the Commissioner in exercise of his revision jurisdiction by issuing orders under section 264 and in exercise of his supervisory jurisdiction by issuing administrative instructions. The very foundation on revenues arguments in support of non-applicability of section 10(14)(i) is thus devoid of any legally sustainable basis.<p style="text-align: justify;">11. The assessee, though working for an international carrier, operates on the domestic flights. The question then arises whether exemption under section 10(14)(i) is available in respect of the same allowances when the assessee has to stay in a place, outside his place of posting, in India. This takes us to an even more fundamental question and that is to what extent applicability of exemption under section 10(14)(ii) as was upheld by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Capt. Harminder Singh (supra) is now good in law, particularly after Tribunals subsequent order in the case of Capt. V.K. Verma (supra) and in the light of the stand being taken by the assessing officers and the Administrative Commissioners in the cases of the pilots. It is interesting to note that the Tribunal in Capt. V.K. Vermas case (supra), whose employer was the same as of Capt. Harminder Singh, and the revenue authorities have consistently held that to the extent the allowances are not covered by section 10(14)(ii), the same are to be treated as subject-matter of exemption under section 10(14)(i). In Capt. Vermas case (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, vide order dated 22-8-2001, observed that :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On careful perusal of the record, we find force in the contentions of the assessee that the facts of the impugned case are not identical to that of Harminder Singhs case (supra). As such the principle laid down in that case is not strictly applicable to the instant case. It is also obvious from Tribunals order in Harminder Singhs case that Tribunal did not have occasion to examine the issue of exemption of allowance under section 10(14)(i) of the Act, if the assessee is on flying duty abroad. Though the assessee has emphatically argued that its claims are covered under section 10(14)(i), we are of the view that since lower authorities have not applied their mind to this aspect, this matter should go back to the assessing officer for its reexamination in the light of assessees contentions and various notifications of the Board and relevant provisions of law. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the matter to the file of the assessing officer for re-examination in the terms indicated above.<p style="text-align: justify;">12. This order has been accepted by the revenue. In fact, when the matter was thus restored to the file of the assessing officer, the assessing officer finalized the assessment on 20-2-2002, by observing, inter alia, as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">As per the directions of the ITAT, the case was taken up for hearing. The counsel of the assessee has filed written submissions in this regard. He has also filed a copy of the order dated 19-12-2001 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) XXVII, Mumbai in the case of Neeta Kulkarni in Appeal No. CIT, XXVII/ITO, Wd 11(3)/96/2001-02. It was contended by the AR that the CIT (Appeals), in the above order, has held that the allowances paid while operating international flights are covered by exemption under section 10(14)(i) read with Notification No. SO 143(E), dated 28-2-1989 subject to verification of expenses actually incurred by the assessee while operating international flights.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The assessees AR has also filed a detailed note stating that Indian Airlines, employer, provides accommodation at foreign stations to the assessee on bread and breakfast basis. These are paid in local currency at foreign stations to meet out other expenditure on meals, refreshments, tea, transportation, telephone and other incidental expenses. It was claimed that these foreign allowances are in the nature of reimbursements and have been spent while performing official duties. The AR has further relied upon instruction No. 1107, dated 5-10-1977 and letter dated 30-3-1990 issued by the CBDT in support of his contention that these allowances are exempt under section 10(14)(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I have considered the submissions of the AR and details filed by him. I have also gone through the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai referred to above. Though the assessee has claimed that the allowances received by him have been spent for the purpose for which it were given, the assessee could not provide any supporting material /vouchers to substantiate his claim in this regard. Keeping in view the nature of expenditure to be incurred at foreign station, facilities provided by the employer and the amount of foreign allowance paid to the assessee I consider it reasonable to take 60 per cent of the foreign allowances as having been actually incurred and allow exemption under section 10(14)(i) read with Notification No. SO 143(E) .......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is thus clear that even as per the revenue authorities, the claim of exemption is allowable under section 10(14)(1) though only to the extent of 60 per cent in respect of allowances granted for the purpose of visits abroad in connection with the flying duties. The nature of allowances is admittedly the same for domestic and international visits, only the quantum of allowance and currency of allowance varies. That is a significant departure from revenues stand that the allowances cannot be said to be in the nature of allowances eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(1) at all. The revenue having taken the stand that the nature of allowances is such that it can be partly exempted under section 10(14)(1) when assessee visits abroad and when the exemption under section 10(14)(ii) is, therefore, unavailable, it cannot be open to revenue to now argue that provisions of section 10(14)(i) cannot be attracted at all in respect of the identical allowances for visiting Indian stations. To that extent, the principle laid down by the Tribunal in Capt. Harminder Singhs case (supra) has been modified by the Tribunal in the subsequent decisions, such as in the case of Capt. V.K. Verma (supra), and even by the revenue authorities in the assessments of other assessees. Once the revenue itself accepts that the nature of allowances is covered by section 10(14)(i) read with Notification No. S.O. 143(E), though in connection with flights abroad, the only surviving reason for rejection of claim under section 10(14)(i) in respect of domestic allowances is specific provision of section 10(14)(ii) governing the exemption in respect of domestic allowances.<p style="text-align: justify;">13. A plain reading of the revision orders passed under section 264 and administrative instructions issued by the Administrative Commission also shows that to the extent exemption under section 10(14)(ii) is not available in respect of the allowances, the field officers have considered the same allowances in respect of 'food, beverage, telephone and transportation', as eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(i). The only reason for rejecting the exemption under section 10(14)(1) thus is availability of exemption under section 10(14)(ii) in respect of those allowances. This surviving reason for rejection of claim of exemption under section 10(14)(1), however, rests on the fallacious assumption that the provisions of section 10(14)(i) and section 10(14)(ii) do not operate in mutually exclusive fields.<p style="text-align: justify;">14. We consider it necessary to reproduce the provisions of section 10(14) which are as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In computing the total income of a previous year of any person, any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not be included :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(14)	**		**		**		**		**</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) any such special allowance or benefit, not being in the nature of a perquisite with the meanings of clause (2) of section 17, specifically granted to meet expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in the performance of duties of an office or employment of profit, as may be prescribed, to the extent to which such expenses are actually incurred for that purpose;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) any such allowance granted to the assessee either to meet his personal expenses at the place where duties of his office or employment of profit are ordinarily performed by him or at the place where he ordinarily resides, or to compensate him for the increased cost of living as may be prescribed and to the extent may be prescribed :<p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that nothing in sub-clause (ii) shall apply to any allowance in the nature of personal allowance granted to him for performing duties of a special nature relating to his office unless such allowance is related to his place of posting or residence.<p style="text-align: justify;">15. We also consider it appropriate to reproduce the part of Rule 2BB under which the allowances paid for going abroad in connection with flying duties are exempted by the revenue and under which the allowances paid for going to other places inside India are exempted by the revenue :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Rule 2BB :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) For the purpose of clause (i) of sub section 14 of section 10, prescribed allowances, by whatever name called, shall be following :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) any allowance, whether granted on tour or for the period of journey in connection with transfer, to meet the ordinary daily charges incurred by an employee on account of absence from normal place of duty;<p style="text-align: justify;">(2) For the purpose of clause (ii) of sub-section (14) of section 10, prescribed allowances, by whatever name called, and the extent thereof, shall be following, namely,<p style="text-align: justify;">(i)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sl.No.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Name of the allowance</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Any allowance granted to an employee working in any transport system, to meet his personal expenditure during his duty performed in the course of running of such transport, from one place to another place, provided such employee is not in receipt of daily allowance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Place at which allowance is exempt </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Extent to which allowance is exempt</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Whole of India upto a</p><p style="text-align: justify;">70% of the allowance maximum of Rs. 3,000 per month<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. An analysis of section 10(14)(1) read with Rule 2BB(1)(b) indicates that essential ingredients of an allowance eligible for exemption under that section are as follow :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">the allowance or benefit should be specifically granted to meet expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in connection with the duties of an office or employment of profit;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">the allowance or benefit should not be in the nature of a perquisite as defined under section 17(2) of the Act;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">the exemption of allowance is restricted to the extent to which such expenses are actually incurred for that purpose;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">the allowance should be to meet ordinary daily charges on account of absence from normal place of duty.<p style="text-align: justify;">17. As for the nature of allowance which are exempt under section 10(14)(ii), in terms of plain words of the statutory provisions under that section, the following conditions are required to be satisfied :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">the allowance should be granted to meet personal expenses of the assessee or to compensate him for the increased cost of living;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">in case the allowance is granted to meet personal expenses of the assessee, the allowance should be to meet his personal expenses at</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) at the place where the duties of office or employment of profit are ordinarily performed; or</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) at the place where the assessee normally resides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Once the above conditions, as laid down under the statute are satisfied, the exemption is available in respect of the allowance granted to an assessee working in any transport system and to meet personal expenses of such assessee during the course of running of such transport from one place to another;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">the assessee should not be in receipt of a daily allowance; and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">the exemption of allowance is to the extent the allowance is prescribed at 70 per cent of the allowance up to a maximum of Rs. 3,000 per month so far as year before us is concerned.<p style="text-align: justify;">18. It is thus clear that so far as eligibility for exemption under section 10(14)(i) read with Rule 2BB(1)(b) is concerned, it has nothing to do with the place which assessee is to visit in the course of duties. The exemption under this section cannot be declined on the ground that the assessee was to visit places outside his normal place of duty in India, and not abroad. Whether an assessee is in India or is outside India, as long as allowance is granted to meet ordinary daily charges on account of absence from normal place of duty, the same is eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(1) read with Rule 2BB(1)(b)-of course subject to actual use condition but that is not relevant in the present context. Therefore, the normal interpretation of this provision, as accepted by the revenue, is that if an employee is posted in Mumbai and he travels to, say, London, the allowance that the assessee is granted to meet his ordinary daily charges, such as say on meals, beverages, refreshments, toiletries etc. on account of his absence from Mumbai, the same is eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(1) read with Rule 2BB(1)(b). The revenue also, therefore, accepts that allowances are specifically granted to meet expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in connection with the duties of an office, and are not in the nature of perquisite under section 17(2) of the Act. because without satisfying these conditions, the exemption under section 10(14)(i) could not have been granted at all in respect of the allowances. However, it is also important to appreciate that rule 2BB(1)(b) does not make a distinction between domestic destinations and foreign destinations. Therefore, once the revenue accepts that the allowances are granted to meet ordinary daily charges on account of absence from normal place of duty when assessee goes on flying duties abroad, it cannot be open to revenue to contend that so far as allowances to visit domestic destinations are concerned, the eligibility of exemption under section 10(14)(i) is not available. The exemption under section 10(14)(i) has, however, been denied apparently on the ground that the exemption under section 10(14)(ii) read with Rule 2BB(2)(iv) is available in respect of such allowances.<p style="text-align: justify;">19. Section 10(14)(ii) read with Rule 2BB(2)(iv), on the other hand, deals with the allowances which are granted to meet (a) increased cost of living; or to meet (b) personal expenses at the place where duties of office are performed or where the assessee ordinarily resides. An allowance can either be for personal expenses or for official expenses; it cannot be for official expenses as also for personal expenses at the same time. Therefore, once it is stand of the revenue that the allowances are granted to 'meet expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in connection with the duties of an office' since exemption under section 10(14)(i) read with Rule 2BB(1)(b) has been granted in respect of such allowances by the assessing officer himself and by the Commissioner, by way of revision orders under section 264, in respect of allowances in connection with flying duties aboard, merely because the places covered by the assessee in some of such visits are inside India, it cannot be said that the allowances are not granted to 'meet expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in connection with the duties of an office'. The purpose of the allowances remains in the same and if destination that the assessee visits makes any difference to the allowances, such difference is only in terms of quantum of allowance and the currency in which it is paid. These factors, by any stretch of logic, cannot have any bearing on the eligibility for exemption under section 10(14)(i). The very basis of denying exemption under section 10(14)(i), therefore, is no longer sustainable in law.<p style="text-align: justify;">20. When the allowances are admittedly granted for wholly, necessarily and exclusively for official purposes, there cannot be any occasion to invoke section 10(14)(ii) the scope of which is confined to expenses to meet increased cost of living or to meet personal expenses at the place where duties of office are performed or where the assessee resides. The expression place where the duties of his office or employment of profit are performed appearing in section 10(14)(ii) of the Act refers to a geographical location, ie. city, State, or the region, where the employee is posted, as is also evident from column 3 of Rule 2BB(2) which refers to geographical locations such as cities, States, altitude of the place where an employee is posted, and sea distance from Indian land, i.e., continental shelf and exclusive economic zone, where the assessee is posted in offshore installations. Therefore, it is the place of posting, which can be a geographical location in the present context, which is required to be treated as the place where duties of office are to be performed. The question of expenses, to meet which the allowances are given, becomes relevant only when the pilot steps out of the aircraft and stays in a place other than the place of his posting, and, therefore, these expenses cannot be said to be incurred during the performance of the duties or during the course of taking an aircraft from one place to another. A commercial pilot, in the course of performance of his duties, has to stay at various places not for performance of duties but in connection with performance of his duties. For example, if a Mumbai based commercial pilot has to stay in New Delhi overnight before he resumes or starts his flying duties on flights originating from there, he is to be treated as on tour to New Delhi in connection with his duties of office. The duties of his office include flying an aircraft, and he flies the aircraft at New Delhi also, but then his overnight stay in New Delhi cannot be said to be for flying an aircraft but can only be in connection with flying an aircraft. The allowances granted to the assessee are not for being in New Delhi while flying the aircraft but for staying in New Delhi to enable him to fly from New Delhi. Therefore, the allowances cannot be said to be for the purposes of meeting personal expenses at the place where duties of office are performed. It also not the revenues case that the allowances are granted to meet personal expenses where the assessee normally resides, because the question of these allowances comes into play only when the assessee goes out of the place where he normally resides. The allowances cannot, therefore, be said to have been granted for the purpose of meeting personal expenses of the place where the assessee resides or where the duties of office are performed. As for an allowance to meet increased cost of living, it can only refer to an allowance to supplement the cost of living and not to an allowance which is to meet the costs of ordinary daily charges on account from normal place of duty. The cost of living, in any event, only relevant for the place of the duties are normally performed, and not of the places where a person has to go in connection with performance of his duties. A place of duty, as we have discussed above, refers to a geographical location and, therefore, not an aircraft which cannot be stationary and has to move from place to place. It is also not in dispute that a daily allowance, though computed at hourly rate, is being paid to the assessee, and, for this reason also, rule 2BB(2)(iv) has no application in the cases where daily allowance is paid. Last few words of this entry are 'provided such employee is not in receipt of daily allowance'. For all these reasons, the provisions of section 10(14)(ii) and also of Rule 2BB(2)(iv) are not applicable on the facts of this case.<p style="text-align: justify;">21. The line of distinction between an allowance to meet expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively for the performance of duties, though prima facie of a personal nature, and an allowance to meet personal expenses simplicitor is very significant. Take for example, and allowance to meet the costs of transfer, packing of transportation of personal effects on transfer of an employee. Such an allowance, on the face of it, appears to be an allowance to meet personal expenses of an employee but since his transfer is in connection with the duties of an office, the same is treated as having been granted to meet the expenses to meet expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in connection with the duties of an office and an allowance granted to meet the cost of travel on tour or transfer' appearing in Rule 2BB(1)(a) and Explanation to the said Rule categorically so clarifies. In contrast to this example, let us take the case of Remote Locality Allowance paid to an employee who is posted in Nicobar Island. This allowance is covered by Rule 2BB(2)(2) to the extent of Rs. 1,300 per month, but there is no condition attached about the use of this allowance. Once an employee is posted in Nicobar Island, such a posting of the employee, by itself, entitles him the allowance and this is to meet the personal expenses of the employee. This allowance is therefore to meet personal expenses at the place of posting, as is the mandate of section 10(14)(ii). However, when the same employee travels back to mainland in connection with his duties and he gets and allowance to meet his ordinary daily charges on account of absence from normal place of duty, he will be entitled to exemption under section 10(14)(1) in respect of such allowances. In both the situations, allowance is to meet the personal expenses because, after all, ordinary daily charges are also personal expenses in nature but then personal expenses at the place of duty and personal expenses, necessitated by same is the case employee travels outside the place where he is posted and he gets an allowance to meet the costs of boarding and lodging, which is undoubtedly a personal expense in nature, the allowance so granted is treated as and to meet the ordinary daily charges incurred by an employee on account of absence from normal place of duty and thus 'wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in connection with the duties of an office or employment of profit'. Therefore, an allowance granted to a commercial pilot to meet his cost of meals, beverages, telephone and laundry etc. cannot be said to be for the purpose of meeting the increased cost of living as it is to meet the costs of ordinary daily charges on account of absence from normal place of duty. It is thus clear that the provisions of section 10(14)(ii) read with Rule 2BB(2)(iv) have no application in case the allowances are found to be covered by the provisions of section 10(14)(i) read with Rule 2BB(1)(b), and vice versa. These two sections operate in mutually exclusive are as inasmuch as application of one of the section is to the exclusion of the other section. In other words, revenue having accepted the allowances granted to the assessee are covered by section 10(14)(1), there is no room to invoke the provisions of section 10(14)(ii). It is materially different from the case of Capt. Harminder Singh (supra) wherein there was a categorical finding by the Tribunal that the allowances in question are not covered by the provisions of section 10(14)(1) read with Notification No. S.O. 143(E) which is in pari materia with Rule 2BB(1)(a) and (b), but that is no longer the case as revenue itself has allowed exemption under section 10(14)(i) read with Rule 2BB(1)(b) in respect of identical allowances. To that extent, the legal position, on the facts of the case before us and in the light of developments which have been taken note of hereinabove, is that the exemption under section 10(14)(1) is also available for allowances granted to the assessee in respect of tours of the assessee to domestic destinations as well, and that section 10(14)(ii) cannot be said to have any application in respect of such allowances.<p style="text-align: justify;">22. For the reasons set out above, we are of the considered view that, in principle, provisions of section 10(14)(1) will apply to the allowances received by the assessee for tours to places inside as also outside India, and the assessee will, accordingly, be eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(1) read with Rule 2BB(1)(b) in respect of such allowances.<p style="text-align: justify;">23. The next question then arises as to what is the extent to which exemption of allowances, in the absence of any evidence for actual use of allowance for the purpose for which such allowances are granted, can be granted under section 10(14)(1). Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed exemption to the extent of 50 per cent of allowances or Rs. 50,000, whichever is lower. It is difficult to comprehend as to how the quantum of allowance can determine the amount actually spent by the employee; in fact, it is the other way round. It is understandable that actual expenditure by the employees influences the quantum of allowance fixed by the employer, but not vice versa. The ceiling of exemption to the extent of 50 per cent of allowances is, therefore, devoid of any rationale. Similarly, the monetary ceiling of Rs. 50,000 per annum on the exemption of allowances under section 10(14)(i) is even more unfounded. That would be equating expenditure incurred by an employee who is on tour for, say, 180 days with someone who has been on tour for, say, 8 days. The basis for adopting this figure of Rs. 50,000 is also far from clear, and appears to be arbitrary. The quantum of exemption of allowances, as decided by the Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, does not meet our approval.<p style="text-align: justify;">24. The issue regarding extent to which exemption can be granted in the absence of evidence of actual expenditure, also came up before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of one Madanlal Mohanlal Narang, an employee of the shipping Corporation of India. In the said order dated 2 1 st April, 2006, reported as Madanlal Mohanlal Narang v. Assn. CIT (101 TTJ 1005), the Tribunal, inter ali,4 observed as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We find that the basic reason of declining the exemption claimed by the assessee is that the authorities below are not satisfied about evidence of the assessee having actually spent the amount allowance for the purposes for which the same were granted. A lot of emphasis is laid on the fact that section 10(14)(1) provides any allowance for the purpose of meeting expenses wholly necessarily and exclusively incurred for the purpose of official duties, as may be prescribed, but the exemption is available only to the extent 'to the which such expenses are actually incurred for that purposes'. The assessing officer has disallowed the exemption only on the basis that there were insufficient proof for the expenses having been actually incurred. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has also held that the appellant has not produced evidence regarding actual use of the allowances for the purpose for which the same were granted. Unlike the requirements of section 10(14)(ii) which provide for exemption of a prescribed allowance to the extent prescribed, under section 10(14)(i) exemption is indeed confined to the extent to which an exempt allowance is actually spent for the purposes for which such allowance is granted. In other words, actual use of an allowance is one of the conditions precedent for exemption under section 10(14)(1). This is in sharp contrast with the exemption provisions of section 10(14)(ii) under which even the quantum of exemption is to be prescribed by the Rules. Having taken note of this significant distinction, however, we much also appreciate the background in which this actual use condition was brought in the statute and true connotations thereof in the context of section 10(14)(i).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The expression to the extent to which such expenses are actually incurred, as finds place in section 10(14)(1), is not new to the Income-tax Act. It was first introduced, with effect from 1-4-1955, in section 4(3)(vi) of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922 which dealt with the exemption of allowances to the salaried employees. This amendment was made in the backdrop of Honble Bombay High Courts judgment in the case of Tejaji Frasaram Kharwalla v. CIT : [1948]16ITR260(Bom) wherein Their Lordships had held that exemption under section 4(3)(vi) was available even if portion of the allowance was not consumed and stood as surplus in the hands of the employees. Subsequently, though this decision was reversed by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Tejaji Frasaram Kharwalla : [1968]67ITR95(SC) , not before section 4(3)(vi) was amended, with effect from 1-4-1955, by Finance Act, 1955. This amendment, it appears, resulted in considerable apprehension amongst the salaried employees as to how can they be expected to maintain meticulous details and evidence of expenditure incurred by them for the actual usage of allowance. To allay these apprehensions, the Central Board of Direct Taxes on 1-8-1955, issued a circular which is reproduced below for ready reference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Special allowance or benefit being reasonable and not disproportionately high - No details of expenses actually incurred need be asked for the purpose of granting exemption under section 4(3)(vi) of 1922 Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The exemption under section 4(3)(vi) in respect of any special allowance or benefit will be available from the assessment year 1955-56 only to the extent of the sanctioned amounts. Generally speaking, where the specific allowance are reasonable with reference to the nature of the duties performed by the assessee and are not disproportionately high compared to the salary received by him, not attempt will ordinarily be made to call for details of the expenses actually incurred by him with a view to disentitling him to some extent from the exemption. An enquiry will, of course, be justified and will be made in cases where the allowances are prima facia unreasonably high.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Source: Direct Taxes Circulars</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Volume 1 - 1994 Edition - Page 1.130</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is, therefore, clear that even as the provisions were amended so as to allow the exemption of allowance only to the extent the allowances were used for the purposes for which the same were granted, even in this amendment did not vest the assessing officers powers to call for details of actual expenditure unless, generally speaking, the allowances are unreasonably high vis-a-vis salaries of the assessee or with reference to the nature of duties performed by the assessees.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The above circular was undoubtedly issued under the Income Tax Act, 1922 but then all the circulars issued under section 1922 Act, do not cease to hold good in law. Section 297(2)(k) specifically provides that notwithstanding the repeal of Income Tax Act, 1922, amongst other things, any instructions issued under any provisions of the repealed Act shall, so far as not inconsistent with the corresponding provisions of Income-Tax Act, 1961, deemed to have been issued under the corresponding provisions of the new Act, and shall continue to remain in force accordingly. In other words, to the extent the legal provisions of 1922 Act and 1961 Act are in pari materia, circulars and instructions issued under the 1922 Act will also hold good. The circular in view of the provisions of section 297(2)(k) it still holds good and continued to be in force. The expression used i.e., to the extent to which such expenses are actually incurred being absolutely identical in both the Acts, the provisions of the above circular, in our humble understanding, apply under the 1961 Act as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. in the light of the aforesaid circular it is not open to the revenue to call for the details of expenses actually incurred unless the specific allowance are disproportionately high compared to the salary received by him or unreasonable with reference to the nature of the duties performed by the assessee. It is, however, not the case of the revenue that the allowance granted to the assessee was unreasonable or excessive having regard to the salary of the assessee or the legitimate minimum requirement for the purpose for which the allowances were granted. We have also noted that the quantum of these allowances is prima facie reasonable vis-a-vis salary of the assessee and the purposes which the allowances were given....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is thus clear that unless the quantum of allowances in respect of which exemption under section 10(14)(i) is claimed is found to be excessive or unreasonable, there cannot be any occasion for the assessing officer to call for the actual evidence of expenditure.<p style="text-align: justify;">25. To demonstrate what can be considered reasonable allowance, learned counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to a copy of the circular # Q/FD/695/1/90, dated 28-3-1995 issued by the Government of India (Ministry of External Affairs) which sets out the rate at which a Government servant is entitled to daily allowance when he travels to various countries. The rate at which daily allowance is granted to the Government servants for some of the countries is as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Australia</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 75</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Austria</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 68</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Bahrain</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 51</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Canada</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 54</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Chaina</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 68</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Germany</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 75</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Hong Kong</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 75</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Ethiopia</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 50</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Indonesia</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 60</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Japan</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 75</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Kenya</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 50</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Korea</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 70</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Kuwait</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 74</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Malaysia</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 50</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Mauritius</p><p style="text-align: justify;">us $ 50</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Russian Federation</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 75</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Switzerland</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 58</p><p style="text-align: justify;">UAE</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 61</p><p style="text-align: justify;">UK</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 75</p><p style="text-align: justify;">USA</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 75</p><p style="text-align: justify;">These daily allowances are over and above the hotel charges and local conveyance expenses which are allowed on actual expense basis in the approved list of hotels, but wherever breakfast is included in the hotel tariff, the daily allowance is reduced by 10 per cent. On the strength of this Government circular, learned counsel contends that the allowance at the rate of US $ 75 is reasonable. It is, therefore, argued that to the extent of US $ 75 per day, the allowance granted to the assessee can be treated as a daily allowance to meet ordinary daily charges on account of absence from normal place of duty.<p style="text-align: justify;">26. Learned Departmental Representative vehemently contends that even if the allowance is granted at the rates prescribed by the Government, a person getting such an allowance is under an obligation to maintain record about evidences of expenses having been actually incurred. In the absence of evidence of allowance having actually been spent, according to the learned Departmental Representative, exemption under section 10(14)(i) in respect of the same will not be admissible. That contention, for the reasons set out by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Madanlal Mohanlal Narang (supra), cannot be accepted. The allowances fixed by the Government of India cannot be said to excessive or unreasonable vis-a-vis salaries of the employees or the purposes for which the allowances are granted, and, therefore, it cannot be open to the assessing officer to demand evidence of actual expenditure in respect of such allowances or in respect of similar allowances, to the persons drawing comparable salaries, of the same quantum. Keeping in view of the nature of job in aviation sector, as also keeping in mind the fact that aviation crew is generally required to stay in premium five star hotels where costs are high, we are of the considered view that the daily allowance at the rates prescribed for the Government employees which ranges between US $ 50 to US $ 75 per day (minus 10 per cent for the breakfast which is provided to the assessee by the airline employer), to meet the costs of meals, beverages and other incidental expenses, cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable allowance. To that extent, we accept the contention of the assessee. We direct the assessing officer to accordingly grant exemption under section 10(14)(i) to the allowances, by adopting daily rates so fixed by the Government of India as the maximum permissible rate eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(i) without productions of evidence of actual expenditure, out of the consolidated flying allowances received by the assessee. In case, however, the allowance actually received by the assessee for a particular day is less than the daily allowances fixed by the Government of India, the exemption will be restricted to the actual allowance received by the assessee.<p style="text-align: justify;">27. In order that the above directions can be given effect by the assessing officer, the assessee shall provide for the details of stay abroad in connection with the performance of duties of his office, and compute the exempt portion of daily allowance at the rates specified in the Government circular referred to above. Upon furnishing of these details by the assessee, the assessing officer shall grant exemption under section 10(14)(i) in respect of the allowances in the terms indicated above.<p style="text-align: justify;">28. We now come to the quantum of allowance to be treated as exempt under section 10(14)(i) in respect of allowances granted to the assessee to meet ordinary daily charges during the period he is away from his base station but is in India.<p style="text-align: justify;">29. The assessee has contended that a sum of Rs, 600 per day in respect of the above are fair and reasonable. No material has been brought on record by any of the authorities below to establish, or even indicate, that this quantum of allowance is excessive or unreasonable. We agree with learned counsels contention that having regard to high prices of meals and other incidental expenses at the places the airline crew members are required to stay in, a sum of Rs. 600 per day is hardly enough to meet the costs of two meals. We, therefore, see no reasons to reject the claim of the assessee. We direct the assessing officer to accordingly grant exemption under section 10(14)(i) to the allowances, by adopting daily rates so fixed by the Government of India as the maximum permissible rate eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(i) without productions of evidence of actual expenditure, out of the consolidated flying allowances received by the assessee. In case, however, the allowance actually received by the assessee for a particular day of stay in India, outside the place of posting, is less than Rs. 600 per day, the exemption will be restricted to the amount of actual allowance received. In order that the above directions can be given effect by the assessing officer, the assessee shall provide for and substantiate the details of stay in India outside the place of posting, in connection with the performance of duties of his office and compute the exempt portion of daily allowance at the rate of Rs. 600 per day as discussed above. Upon furnishing of these details by the assessee, the assessing officer shall grant exemption under section 10(14)(i) in respect of the allowances in the terms indicated above.<p style="text-align: justify;">30. For the reasons set out above, we uphold the contentions of the assessee in the terms indicated above. The matter will, however, go back to the file of the assessing officer for the limited purposes of quantification of relief in terms of our observations in the foregoing paragraphs.'<p style="text-align: justify;">6. The only material difference in this case is that the quantum of allowances is fixed by the airlines, and therefore the assessee has claimed that the entire allowance is exempt under section 10(14). The Commissioner (Appeals) has, however, allowed the exemption under section 10(14)(i), to the extent of Rs. 50,000 or 50 per cent of the allowance whichever is less, so far as allowances paid for travelling outside India are concerned. As regards the allowances paid for travelling inside India are concerned, the Commissioner (Appeals), has upheld the exemption under section 10(14)(ii) read with Notification No. 144(E) (Item No. 4) up to the prescribed limit, i.e., Rs. 1,000 per month.<p style="text-align: justify;">7. As regards the exemption of allowances for travel outside India is concerned, as we have noted above, the Commissioner himself, in exercise of his powers under section 264 and also by issuing administrative instructions, has accepted that exemption under section 10(14)(1) is permissible in respect of the same. Once the Administrative Commissioner accepts the position regarding applicability of exemption under section 10(14)(1) read with Notification No. 143(E), or under corresponding rule under the Income-Tax Rules, for these allowances when assessee travels abroad in connection with the flying duties, it cannot be open to the revenue to take a stand that those very allowances cease to be of the nature as to be covered by section 10(14)(1) read with the Notification No. 143(E). The only reason of disallowance was the applicability of section 10(14)(ii) read with Notification No. 144(E), or the corresponding rule, but then, as revenue itself has accepted applicability of section 10(14)(1) in respect of allowances drawn for travelling abroad in connection with the flying duties, there cannot be any good reason to decline exemption under section 10(14)(1) in respect of allowances paid for travelling within India. Once exemption under section 10(14)(1) is available in respect of these allowances, the same allowances cannot be subject-matter of exemption under section 10(14)(ii) as well. In any event, as we have noted earlier, section 10(14)(1) and section 10(14)(ii) operate in mutually exclusive areas. In Capt. Harminder Singhs case (supra), it was not the revenues stand that these allowances, when an employee travels abroad, will be eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(1). In any case, for the detailed reasons set out in the case of Capt. K.P. Singh v. Asstt. CIT and vice versa, allowances eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(ii) and section 10(14)(i) are operate in mutually exclusive areas and once an allowance is accepted to be eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(1), for that reason alone, eligibility for exemption under section 10(14)(ii) cannot be available. In these circumstances, and particularly bearing in mind the fact that revenue itself has now accepted that exemption under section 10(14)(1) is to be given for the allowances in connection with visits abroad, are of the view that the exemption of these allowances is to be granted under section 10(14)(i) for travelling within India as well.<p style="text-align: justify;">8. The next question then is of the quantum of allowances up to which the allowances are to be treated as exempt and whether the exemption can be granted in the absence of the evidences of actual expenditure. This question has already been addressed to in the case of Madanlal Mohan lal Narangv. Asstt. CIT referred to and extracted in the case of Capt. K.P. Singh v. CIT and vice versa by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal. In the said case, the Tribunal has concluded as follow :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">. . . it is not open to the revenue to call for the details of expenses actually incurred unless the specific allowances are disproportionately high compared to the salary received by him or unreasonable with reference to the nature of the duties performed by the assessee. It is, however, not the case of the revenue that the allowance granted to the assessee was unreasonable or excessive having regard to the salary of the assessee or the legitimate minimum requirement for the purpose for which the allowances were granted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the present case also, it is not the revenues case that the allowances received by the assessee are excessive or unreasonable vis-a-vis the salary of the assessee or the purposes for which the same are granted. No material has been brought before us to indicate that the allowances are excessive or unreasonable. However, on the lines of the view that we have decided in the case of Capt. K.P. Singh (supra), we think it fit and proper to restrict the exemption to the rate of daily allowance fixed by the Government of India, so far as foreign visits are concerned. These daily allowance rate have been set out earlier in this order while quoting extracts from our order in the case of Capt. K.P. Singh (supra). We direct the assessing officer to accordingly grant exemption under section 10(14)(i) to the allowances, by adopting daily rates so fixed by the Government of India as the maximum permissible rate eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(1) without productions of evidence of actual expenditure, out of the consolidated flying allowances received by the assessee. In case, however, the allowance actually received by the assessee for a particular day is less than the daily allowance fixed by the Government of India, the exemption will be restricted to the actual allowance received by the assessee. In order that the above directions can be given effect by the assessing officer, the assessee shall provide for the details of stay abroad in connection with the performance of duties of his office, and compute the exempt portion of daily allowance at the rates specified in the Government circular referred to above. Upon furnishing of these details by the assessee, the assessing officer shall grant exemption under section 10(14)(i) in respect of the allowances in the terms indicated above. We now come to the quantum of allowance to be treated as exempt under section 10(14)(i) in respect of allowances granted to the assessee to meet ordinary daily charges during the period he is away from his base station but is in India. In the case of Capt. K.P. Singh (supra) a commercial pilot working for Air India Limited, we have held that having regard to high prices of meals and other incidental expenses at the places the airline crew members are required to stay in, a sum of Rs. 600 per day, or the actual allowance - whichever is less, to be allowed exemption under section 10(14)(1). We see no reasons to take any other view of the matter in the present case. Accordingly, we direct the assessing officer to accordingly grant exemption under section 10(14)(1) to the allowances, up to an amount of Rs. 600 per day without productions of evidence of actual expenditure, out of the total flying allowances received by the assessee for a day. As for the absence from normal place of duty for less than one day but more than 12 hours, the limit of exemption under section 10(14)(1), in accordance with the Government of India rules, will be the same. If this period is 6 hours or less, no portion of the amount can be taken as exempt. Where however, such period is less than 12 hours but 6 hours or more, the exemption will be confined to 70 per cent of the limit i.e., Rs. 420. In case, however, the allowance actually received by the assessee for a particular day of stay in India, outside the place of posting, is less than the amounts so specified above, the exemption will be restricted to the amount of actual allowance received. in order that the above directions can be given effect by the assessing officer, the assessee shall provide for and substantiate the details of stay in India outside the place of posting, in connection with the performance of duties of his office and compute the exempt portion of daily allowance at the rate of Rs. 600 per day as discussed above. In case, however, the visit to place outside the place of duty is for less than one day. Upon furnishing of these details by the assessee, the assessing officer shall grant exemption under section 10(14)(i) in respect of the allowances in the terms indicated above.<p style="text-align: justify;">9. For the reasons set out above, while we reject the contention of the revenue so far as the issue of grant of exemption to impugned allowances is concerned, and we uphold the contentions of the assessee in the terms indicated above. The matter will, however, go back to the file of the assessing officer for the limited purposes of quantification of relief in terms of our observations in the foregoing paragraphs.<p style="text-align: justify;">10. The only other issue left is revenues grievance against Commissioner (Appeal)s direction to the effect that interest under section 234A is to be charged only for the period for which the assessee was permitted to file the income-tax returns i.e., for two years. This issue is also covered in favour of the assessee by a series of orders of various Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal, copies of which were filed before us at pages 4 to 23 of the paper book. In these decisions, namely in the cases of Capt. EB Karadia, Ms. Priti Pithawala v. ITO (2003) 129 Taxman 79 (Mum) Nupur Rohinda, F.S. Vajifdar, Ms. Sidha Salian and Capt. A.K. Munial, the Tribunal has consistently taken the view that the matter is required to be restored to the file of the assessing officer for fresh computation of interest chargeable under section 234A of the Act only for the period for which it was possible for the assessee to file the income-tax return and in the light of Tribunal in the case of Ms. Priti Pithawala v. ITO (2003) 129 Taxman (Mag.) 79. We see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by the Co-ordinate Benches. The Commissioner (Appeals) has only restored to the file of the assessing officer for re-computation of interest under section 234A in terms of our above observations. We, therefore, confirm the action of the Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard as well, and decline to interfere on this count as well.<p style="text-align: justify;">11. In the result, while the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2006]9SOT322(NULL)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Capt. H.R. Vinayak',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '367002'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'ito, Ward 27(1)(3), Mumbai Vs. Capt. H.R. Vinayak Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 1 => 'section 144',
		(int) 2 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 3 => 'section 234',
		(int) 4 => 'section 234A',
		(int) 5 => 'section 234(1)(b',
		(int) 6 => 'section 234A',
		(int) 7 => 'section 234A',
		(int) 8 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 9 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 10 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 11 => 'section 143(1)(a',
		(int) 12 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 13 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 14 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 15 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 16 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 17 => 'section 264',
		(int) 18 => 'section 264',
		(int) 19 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 20 => 'section 264',
		(int) 21 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 22 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 23 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 24 => 'section 264',
		(int) 25 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 26 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 27 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 28 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 29 => 'section 264',
		(int) 30 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 31 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 32 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 33 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 34 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 35 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 36 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 37 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 38 => 'section 264',
		(int) 39 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 40 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 41 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 42 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 43 => 'section 17',
		(int) 44 => 'Rule 2BB',
		(int) 45 => 'section 14',
		(int) 46 => 'section 10',
		(int) 47 => 'section 10',
		(int) 48 => 'section 17(2',
		(int) 49 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 50 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 51 => 'section 17(2',
		(int) 52 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 53 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 54 => 'section 264',
		(int) 55 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 56 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 57 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 58 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 59 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 60 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 61 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 62 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 63 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 64 => 'section 10(14)(i).7',
		(int) 65 => 'the Income Tax Act',
		(int) 66 => 'section 1922 Act',
		(int) 67 => 'Income Tax Act',
		(int) 68 => 'section 297(2)(k',
		(int) 69 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 70 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 71 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 72 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 73 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 74 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 75 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 76 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 77 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 78 => 'section 264',
		(int) 79 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 80 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 81 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 82 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 83 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 84 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 85 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 86 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 87 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 88 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 89 => 'section 234A',
		(int) 90 => 'section 234A of the Act',
		(int) 91 => 'section 234A'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Gupta',
		(int) 1 => 'Priti',
		(int) 2 => 'V.K. Verma',
		(int) 3 => 'Harminder',
		(int) 4 => 'V.K. Verma',
		(int) 5 => 'Bench',
		(int) 6 => 'K.P. Singh',
		(int) 7 => 'V.K. Verma v. Asstt',
		(int) 8 => 'Harminder Singh v. Income-tax Officer',
		(int) 9 => 'V.K. Verma v. ITO',
		(int) 10 => 'U.A. Joglekar',
		(int) 11 => 'Shailaja Ramamurthy',
		(int) 12 => 'Neo Poly Pack Pvt',
		(int) 13 => 'Notification Nos',
		(int) 14 => 'Harminder Singh',
		(int) 15 => 'Harminder Singh',
		(int) 16 => 'Harminder Singhs',
		(int) 17 => 'Harminder Singhs',
		(int) 18 => 'Harminder Singh',
		(int) 19 => 'Bench',
		(int) 20 => 'V.K. Verma',
		(int) 21 => 'Bench',
		(int) 22 => 'Harminder Singh',
		(int) 23 => 'V.K. Verma',
		(int) 24 => 'V.K. Vermas',
		(int) 25 => 'Harminder Singh',
		(int) 26 => 'Vermas',
		(int) 27 => 'Bench',
		(int) 28 => 'Harminder Singhs',
		(int) 29 => 'V.K. Verma',
		(int) 30 => 'Harminder Singh',
		(int) 31 => 'Bench',
		(int) 32 => 'Madanlal Mohanlal Narang',
		(int) 33 => 'Madanlal Mohanlal Narang v. Assn',
		(int) 34 => 'Tejaji Frasaram Kharwalla v.',
		(int) 35 => 'Lordships',
		(int) 36 => 'Tejaji Frasaram Kharwalla',
		(int) 37 => 'Bench',
		(int) 38 => 'above.30',
		(int) 39 => 'Rs',
		(int) 40 => 'Harminder Singhs',
		(int) 41 => 'K.P. Singh v. Asstt',
		(int) 42 => 'Madanlal Mohan',
		(int) 43 => 'Narangv',
		(int) 44 => 'K.P. Singh v. CIT',
		(int) 45 => 'Bench',
		(int) 46 => 'K.P. Singh',
		(int) 47 => 'K.P. Singh',
		(int) 48 => 'K.P. Singh',
		(int) 49 => 'Rs',
		(int) 50 => 'Benches of',
		(int) 51 => 'EB Karadia',
		(int) 52 => 'Priti Pithawala',
		(int) 53 => 'Mum',
		(int) 54 => 'Nupur Rohinda',
		(int) 55 => 'F.S. Vajifdar',
		(int) 56 => 'Sidha Salian',
		(int) 57 => 'A.K. Munial',
		(int) 58 => 'Priti',
		(int) 59 => 'Taxman',
		(int) 60 => 'Mag',
		(int) 61 => 'Benches'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Indian Airlines Ltd.',
		(int) 1 => 'the Income-Tax Act',
		(int) 2 => 'Indian Airlines',
		(int) 3 => 'S.0.143(E',
		(int) 4 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
		(int) 5 => 'S.0.143(E',
		(int) 6 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
		(int) 7 => 'Pithawala v. ITO',
		(int) 8 => 'ITA No',
		(int) 9 => 'the Income-Tax Act',
		(int) 10 => 'Income-Tax (Appeals',
		(int) 11 => 'Income-Tax (Appeals',
		(int) 12 => 'Income-Tax (Appeals',
		(int) 13 => 'Income-Tax (Appeals',
		(int) 14 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 15 => 'Asstt',
		(int) 16 => 'CIT',
		(int) 17 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 18 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 19 => 'CIT',
		(int) 20 => 'inter alia',
		(int) 21 => 'Air India Limited',
		(int) 22 => 'ITD',
		(int) 23 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
		(int) 24 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
		(int) 25 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
		(int) 26 => 'the Delhi Bench',
		(int) 27 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 28 => 'ITA No',
		(int) 29 => 'The Commissioner (Appeals',
		(int) 30 => 'the Income-Tax Act',
		(int) 31 => 'the Income-Tax Act',
		(int) 32 => 'the Income-Tax Act',
		(int) 33 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
		(int) 34 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
		(int) 35 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
		(int) 36 => 'The Commissioner (Appeals',
		(int) 37 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
		(int) 38 => 'Income-Tax',
		(int) 39 => 'inter alia',
		(int) 40 => 'Indian Airlines',
		(int) 41 => 'the Income-Tax Act',
		(int) 42 => 'The Commissioner (Appeals',
		(int) 43 => 'Indian Airlines',
		(int) 44 => 'Indian Airlines',
		(int) 45 => 'Appellate',
		(int) 46 => 'Union of India',
		(int) 47 => 'Honble Supreme Court',
		(int) 48 => 'the Honble Supreme Court',
		(int) 49 => 'Berger Paints India Limited',
		(int) 50 => 'the Honble Delhi High Court',
		(int) 51 => 'CWT v. RKKR Industries Private Limited 198',
		(int) 52 => 'CTR',
		(int) 53 => 'CIT',
		(int) 54 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 55 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 56 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 57 => 'the Administrative Commissioners',
		(int) 58 => 'the Tribunal in Capt',
		(int) 59 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 60 => 'Harminder Singhs',
		(int) 61 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 62 => 'Board',
		(int) 63 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
		(int) 64 => 'inter alia',
		(int) 65 => 'Commissioner (Appeals',
		(int) 66 => 'Neeta Kulkarni',
		(int) 67 => 'CIT',
		(int) 68 => 'XXVII/ITO',
		(int) 69 => 'AR',
		(int) 70 => 'the CIT (Appeals',
		(int) 71 => 'AR',
		(int) 72 => 'Indian Airlines',
		(int) 73 => 'AR',
		(int) 74 => 'CBDT',
		(int) 75 => 'AR',
		(int) 76 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
		(int) 77 => 'the Tribunal in Capt',
		(int) 78 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 79 => 'the Administrative Commission',
		(int) 80 => 'Extent',
		(int) 81 => 'State',
		(int) 82 => 'continental',
		(int) 83 => 'Remote Locality Allowance',
		(int) 84 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 85 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
		(int) 86 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 87 => 'Corporation of India',
		(int) 88 => 'CIT',
		(int) 89 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 90 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
		(int) 91 => 'the Indian Income-Tax Act',
		(int) 92 => 'Honble Bombay High Courts',
		(int) 93 => 'the Honble Supreme Court',
		(int) 94 => 'CIT',
		(int) 95 => 'the Central Board of Direct Taxes',
		(int) 96 => 'Income-Tax Act',
		(int) 97 => 'the Government of India',
		(int) 98 => 'Ministry of External Affairs',
		(int) 99 => 'Government',
		(int) 100 => 'Government',
		(int) 101 => 'Government',
		(int) 102 => 'Learned Departmental Representative',
		(int) 103 => 'Departmental Representative',
		(int) 104 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 105 => 'the Government of India',
		(int) 106 => 'Government',
		(int) 107 => 'the Government of India',
		(int) 108 => 'the Government of India',
		(int) 109 => 'Government',
		(int) 110 => 'the Government of India',
		(int) 111 => 'The Commissioner (Appeals',
		(int) 112 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
		(int) 113 => 'Administrative',
		(int) 114 => 'CIT',
		(int) 115 => 'Asstt',
		(int) 116 => 'CIT',
		(int) 117 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 118 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 119 => 'the Government of India',
		(int) 120 => 'the Government of India',
		(int) 121 => 'the Government of India',
		(int) 122 => 'Government',
		(int) 123 => 'Air India Limited',
		(int) 124 => 'the Government of India',
		(int) 125 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 126 => 'ITO',
		(int) 127 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 128 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 129 => 'Pithawala v. ITO',
		(int) 130 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1961',
		(int) 1 => '1990-91',
		(int) 2 => 'S.O. 143(E',
		(int) 3 => 'previous year',
		(int) 4 => '63 82',
		(int) 5 => 'two years',
		(int) 6 => 'the assessment year 1997-98',
		(int) 7 => 'daily',
		(int) 8 => '78',
		(int) 9 => '1992',
		(int) 10 => '5876',
		(int) 11 => 'previous year',
		(int) 12 => '75 per day',
		(int) 13 => '30-5-2003',
		(int) 14 => 'the assessment year 1994-95',
		(int) 15 => '1989',
		(int) 16 => 'years 1995-96',
		(int) 17 => '1996-97',
		(int) 18 => '1992',
		(int) 19 => 'the year',
		(int) 20 => 'previous year',
		(int) 21 => '1993-94',
		(int) 22 => 'previous year',
		(int) 23 => '1,000 per month',
		(int) 24 => 'June',
		(int) 25 => 'the rest of',
		(int) 26 => 'nine months',
		(int) 27 => 'the assessment year 1993-94',
		(int) 28 => 'the assessment year 1997-98',
		(int) 29 => '11(3)/96/2001-02',
		(int) 30 => '1107',
		(int) 31 => 'S.O. 143(E',
		(int) 32 => 'a previous year',
		(int) 33 => 'daily',
		(int) 34 => 'daily',
		(int) 35 => 'daily',
		(int) 36 => 'daily',
		(int) 37 => 'daily',
		(int) 38 => 'Rule 2BB(1)(a',
		(int) 39 => '1,300 per month',
		(int) 40 => 'S.O. 143(E',
		(int) 41 => '180 days',
		(int) 42 => '8 days',
		(int) 43 => '2 1 st April, 2006',
		(int) 44 => '1005',
		(int) 45 => '1922',
		(int) 46 => '1955',
		(int) 47 => 'the assessment year 1955-56',
		(int) 48 => '1922',
		(int) 49 => '1922',
		(int) 50 => '1961',
		(int) 51 => 'daily',
		(int) 52 => 'daily',
		(int) 53 => 'daily',
		(int) 54 => 'daily',
		(int) 55 => 'daily',
		(int) 56 => 'daily',
		(int) 57 => 'daily',
		(int) 58 => 'a particular day',
		(int) 59 => 'daily',
		(int) 60 => 'daily',
		(int) 61 => 'daily',
		(int) 62 => 'a particular day',
		(int) 63 => 'daily',
		(int) 64 => '600 per day',
		(int) 65 => 'daily',
		(int) 66 => 'daily',
		(int) 67 => 'daily',
		(int) 68 => 'a particular day',
		(int) 69 => 'daily',
		(int) 70 => 'daily',
		(int) 71 => 'a day',
		(int) 72 => 'less than one day',
		(int) 73 => 'a particular day',
		(int) 74 => 'daily',
		(int) 75 => '600 per day',
		(int) 76 => 'less than one day',
		(int) 77 => 'two years',
		(int) 78 => '2003',
		(int) 79 => '2003',
		(int) 80 => '79'
	),
	'MONEY' => array(
		(int) 0 => '50 per cent',
		(int) 1 => '50 per cent',
		(int) 2 => '40',
		(int) 3 => '50 per cent',
		(int) 4 => '50 per cent',
		(int) 5 => '50 per cent',
		(int) 6 => '50 per cent',
		(int) 7 => '60 per cent',
		(int) 8 => '50 per cent',
		(int) 9 => '60 per cent',
		(int) 10 => '60 per cent',
		(int) 11 => '70 per cent',
		(int) 12 => '50 per cent',
		(int) 13 => '50 per cent',
		(int) 14 => '1922 Act',
		(int) 15 => '1922 Act and 1961 Act',
		(int) 16 => '$ 75AustriaUS $',
		(int) 17 => '$ 51CanadaUS $',
		(int) 18 => '54ChainaUS',
		(int) 19 => '75Hong',
		(int) 20 => '$ 75EthiopiaUS $',
		(int) 21 => '50IndonesiaUS',
		(int) 22 => '75KenyaUS',
		(int) 23 => '$ 50KoreaUS $',
		(int) 24 => '70KuwaitUS',
		(int) 25 => '75These',
		(int) 26 => '10 per cent',
		(int) 27 => '75',
		(int) 28 => '75',
		(int) 29 => 'between US $ 50 to US $ 75 per day',
		(int) 30 => 'minus 10 per cent',
		(int) 31 => '50 per cent',
		(int) 32 => '70 per cent'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '50,000',
		(int) 1 => '21',
		(int) 2 => '21',
		(int) 3 => '21',
		(int) 4 => 'one',
		(int) 5 => '12-3-2003',
		(int) 6 => '234(1',
		(int) 7 => '234A(3',
		(int) 8 => '50,000',
		(int) 9 => '24-8-2001',
		(int) 10 => '2',
		(int) 11 => '30-6-1997',
		(int) 12 => '3,82,184',
		(int) 13 => '3,82,184',
		(int) 14 => '3,82,184',
		(int) 15 => '62',
		(int) 16 => '144(E',
		(int) 17 => '21',
		(int) 18 => '1',
		(int) 19 => '3,000',
		(int) 20 => '30,000',
		(int) 21 => '36,000',
		(int) 22 => '3,000',
		(int) 23 => '32,97,850',
		(int) 24 => '3,000',
		(int) 25 => '2BB',
		(int) 26 => '50,000',
		(int) 27 => '50,000',
		(int) 28 => '600',
		(int) 29 => 'One',
		(int) 30 => '2',
		(int) 31 => '21',
		(int) 32 => '50,000....6',
		(int) 33 => '24',
		(int) 34 => '50,000',
		(int) 35 => '14-3-2002',
		(int) 36 => '50,000',
		(int) 37 => '16',
		(int) 38 => '2001]249ITR219(SC',
		(int) 39 => 'one',
		(int) 40 => '2004]266ITR99(SC',
		(int) 41 => '2000]245ITR492(Delhi',
		(int) 42 => 'one',
		(int) 43 => '21',
		(int) 44 => '1',
		(int) 45 => '30,000',
		(int) 46 => '3,000',
		(int) 47 => '36,000',
		(int) 48 => '30,000',
		(int) 49 => '3,000',
		(int) 50 => '1,000',
		(int) 51 => '3 plus Rs',
		(int) 52 => '3,000',
		(int) 53 => '9',
		(int) 54 => '30,000',
		(int) 55 => '144(E',
		(int) 56 => '21',
		(int) 57 => '1',
		(int) 58 => '1',
		(int) 59 => '144(E',
		(int) 60 => '22-8-2001',
		(int) 61 => '19-12-2001',
		(int) 62 => '28',
		(int) 63 => '5',
		(int) 64 => '30-3-1990',
		(int) 65 => '10',
		(int) 66 => '14',
		(int) 67 => '2',
		(int) 68 => '2BB',
		(int) 69 => '1',
		(int) 70 => '14',
		(int) 71 => 'one',
		(int) 72 => '3,000',
		(int) 73 => 'one',
		(int) 74 => '3,000',
		(int) 75 => '2BB(1)(b)-of',
		(int) 76 => '3',
		(int) 77 => 'one',
		(int) 78 => '2BB(2)(2',
		(int) 79 => 'two',
		(int) 80 => 'one',
		(int) 81 => '2BB(1)(a',
		(int) 82 => '50,000',
		(int) 83 => '50,000',
		(int) 84 => '50,000',
		(int) 85 => 'one',
		(int) 86 => '101',
		(int) 87 => '6',
		(int) 88 => '1-4-1955',
		(int) 89 => '1948]16ITR260(Bom',
		(int) 90 => '1968]67ITR95(SC',
		(int) 91 => '1-4-1955',
		(int) 92 => '1',
		(int) 93 => '28-3-1995',
		(int) 94 => 'five',
		(int) 95 => '600',
		(int) 96 => '600',
		(int) 97 => 'two',
		(int) 98 => '600',
		(int) 99 => '50,000',
		(int) 100 => '144(E',
		(int) 101 => '4',
		(int) 102 => '1,000',
		(int) 103 => '144(E',
		(int) 104 => '600',
		(int) 105 => '600',
		(int) 106 => '420',
		(int) 107 => '4 to 23',
		(int) 108 => '129',
		(int) 109 => '129'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Mumbai',
		(int) 1 => 'Mumbai',
		(int) 2 => 'Delhi',
		(int) 3 => 'Mumbai',
		(int) 4 => 'assessee',
		(int) 5 => 'India',
		(int) 6 => 'India',
		(int) 7 => 'India',
		(int) 8 => 'US',
		(int) 9 => 'India',
		(int) 10 => 'India',
		(int) 11 => 'New Delhi',
		(int) 12 => 'India',
		(int) 13 => 'India',
		(int) 14 => 'India',
		(int) 15 => 'India',
		(int) 16 => 'XXVII',
		(int) 17 => 'Mumbai',
		(int) 18 => 'Mumbai',
		(int) 19 => 'India',
		(int) 20 => 'India',
		(int) 21 => 'India',
		(int) 22 => 'India',
		(int) 23 => 'India',
		(int) 24 => 'Mumbai',
		(int) 25 => 'London',
		(int) 26 => 'Mumbai',
		(int) 27 => 'India',
		(int) 28 => 'States',
		(int) 29 => 'Mumbai',
		(int) 30 => 'New Delhi',
		(int) 31 => 'New Delhi',
		(int) 32 => 'New Delhi',
		(int) 33 => 'New Delhi',
		(int) 34 => 'New Delhi',
		(int) 35 => 'New Delhi',
		(int) 36 => 'New Delhi',
		(int) 37 => 'India',
		(int) 38 => 'US',
		(int) 39 => 'US',
		(int) 40 => 'India',
		(int) 41 => 'India',
		(int) 42 => 'India',
		(int) 43 => 'India',
		(int) 44 => 'India',
		(int) 45 => 'India',
		(int) 46 => 'India',
		(int) 47 => 'India',
		(int) 48 => 'India',
		(int) 49 => 'India'
	),
	'EVENT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'SO 487(E',
		(int) 1 => 'US Dollars',
		(int) 2 => 'SO 487(E',
		(int) 3 => 'SO 487(E',
		(int) 4 => 'Edition - Page 1.130It'
	),
	'LOC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Harminder Singhs',
		(int) 1 => 'Nicobar Island',
		(int) 2 => 'Nicobar Island'
	),
	'QUANTITY' => array(
		(int) 0 => '20-2-2002'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'ITAT',
		(int) 1 => 'Indian',
		(int) 2 => 'allowance4.Any',
		(int) 3 => 'Indian'
	),
	'TIME' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'overnight',
		(int) 1 => 'overnight',
		(int) 2 => 'hourly',
		(int) 3 => 'more than 12 hours',
		(int) 4 => '6 hours',
		(int) 5 => 'less than 12 hours',
		(int) 6 => '6 hours'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'first'
	),
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Madanlal Mohanlal Narang'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '367002',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'It Appeal No. 6023 (Mum.) of 2003 C.O. No. 135 (Mum.) of 2006 ,  A.Y. 1990-91 ,  23 June 2006',
		'appellant' => 'ito, Ward 27(1)(3), Mumbai',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'ito, Ward 27(1)(3), Mumbai Vs. Capt. H.R. Vinayak',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 34: [D.K. Deshmukh, S.J. Vazifdar & J.P. Devadhar, JJ] Court fee on Petition under Section 34 of the Act  Bombay Court Fees Act (36 of 1959), Schedule I, Article 3, Schedule II, Article 1(f)(iii)  Held, According to Article 3 of Schedule I, on any plaint, application or petition or memorandum of appeal for setting aside or modifying an award, same court fee is payable as is payable on a plaint or memorandum of appeal under Article 1. Thus, when an award is challenged by a plaint, application, petition or memorandum of appeal, court fee is payable on ad valorem basis. But from this requirement of payment of court fee on ad valorem basis, Article 3 excludes an application or petition or memorandum of appeal filed in civil or revenue Court challenging any award made under the Arbitration Act, 1940.Thus, the provisions of Article 3 of Schedule 1 do not apply when an application is filed or appeal is filed challenging an award made under the Arbitration Act, 1940. Thus the provisions of Article 3 of Schedule I do not apply when an application is filed challenging an award made under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The question, therefore, that arises for consideration is whether reference to the provisions of 1940 Act found in Article 3 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act can be said to include reference to the 1996 Act. Perusal of the provisions of Section 8 of General Clauses Act shows that where by a Central enactment any provision of a former enactment is repealed and re-enacted with or without modification then reference in any other enactment to the provisions so repealed shall, unless a different intention appears, be construed as references to the provisions so re-enacted.  In the present case, it is common ground that the former enactment is the 1940 Act, the new enactment is the 1996 Act and any other enactment is the Bombay Court fees Act, the only provision of the 1940 Act referred to in Article 3 of Schedule 1 of the Bombay Court Fees Act is the provisions of Section 33 of the 1940Act and  bare comparison of that provision with the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the 1996 Act shows that the provision of Section 33 of 1940 Act is repealed and re-enacted in sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the 1996 Act with slight modification. Therefore, reference to the provisions of Section 33 of the 1940 Act in Article 3 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Court Fees Act has to be construed, in view of the provisions of Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, as reference to the provisions of Section 34 of the 1996 Act. So far as an appeal filed under Section 37 of the 1996 Act is concerned, perusal of Section 37 shows that an appeal is provided to the appellate Court against an order setting aside an arbitral award or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34. Thus, as the provisions of Article 3 of Schedule-I do not apply to an application or petition filed under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, they will also not apply to the memorandum of appeal filed to set aside or modify an award made by the Arbitrator under the 1996 Act. In other words nothing contained in Article 3 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Court Fees Act applies to an application, petition or memorandum of appeal to set aside or modify any Award made under the 1996 Act as it does not apply to an application or petition or memorandum of appeal to set aside or modify an Award made under the Arbitration Act, 1940. Perusal of the provisions of Section 8 of the General Clauses Act shows that references in any other enactment to a provision in a former enactment is to be construed as reference to re-enacted provision in the new enactment unless a different intention appears. The different intention may appear either in the new enactment or in the other enactment. Nothing was pointed out either in the 1996 Act or in the Bombay Court Fees Act which can be construed as a different intention or which will show that it was not the intention of the Maharashtra legislature to exclude an application or petition or memorandum of appeal filed in Court to set aside or modify an award made under the 1996 Act, from the provisions of Article 3 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Court Fees Act. It appears that the intention behind excluding an application made, challenging the Award made under the 1940 Act, from requirement of payment of ad valorem Court fee which is required to be paid if the same litigant filed a suit on the same subject matter, was to encourage a litigant to go for arbitration instead of filing a suit. Nothing has been pointed out to show that ther4e is any change in that legislative policy. On the contrary, from the preamble of the 1996 Act it is clear that the policy of the legislature is to encourage people to adopt the mode of arbitration for resolving disputes. Article 3 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Court Fees Act does not apply to a petition,  application or memorandum of appeal filed for challenging an Award made under the 1996 Act, and Court fee on a petition filed under Section 34 of the 1996 Act challenging an Award in High Court is payable according to Article 1(f)(iii) of Schedule II. 

Section 37: [D.K. Deshmukh, S.J. Vazifdar & J.P. Devadhar, JJ] Court fee on Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Held, Court fee is payable according to Article 13 of Schedule II of the Bombay Court Fees Act.

Schedule I, Article 3 & Schedule II, Article 1(f)(iii): [D.K. Deshmukh, S.J. Vazifdar & J.P. Devadhar, JJ] Court fee on Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Held, When a Petition under Section 34 is to be filed before a Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction which is not a High Court, the question arises which Article of either First Schedule or Second Schedule would apply. In so far as the challenge to an Award made under the 1940 Act is concerned, an application under Section 33 of that Act could be made to a Civil Court and therefore, payment of Court fee was governed by Article 1(a) of Schedule II. This was so because the application was to be presented to the Court of Civil Judge which was not a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. But now because of change of definition of term Court in the 1996 Act, a petition has to be presented, challenging an Award made under the 1996 Act in terms of the provisions of Section 34 thereof, before the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. No entry either in the first Schedule or in the Second Schedule was pointed out which applies to an application or petition to be made before the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, and therefore, when a litigant wants to file petition before a Principal Civil Court having original jurisdiction which is not High Court, challenging an Award made under the 1996 Act, no court fee under Bombay Court Fees Act is payable because of absence of a general or specific provision. Therefore, it can be said that no Court  fee under the Bombay Court Fees Act is payable when a petition under Section 34 challenging an Award is filed before any Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction which is not High Court. 

Schedule II, Article 13: [D.K. Deshmukh, S.J. Vazifdar & J.P. Devadhar, JJ] Court fee on Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Held, Court fee is payable according to Article 13 of Schedule II of the Bombay Court Fees Act. -  In the said case, we have, inter alia, observed as follows :2. The factual matrix giving rise to this litigation before us is like this. None of the parties is satisfied with this order. 9. There are, however, other reasons for rejecting revenues grievance on merits as well. Harminder Singh (supra) is now good in law, particularly after Tribunals subsequent order in the case of Capt. It is interesting to note that the Tribunal in Capt. 17. As for the nature of allowance which are exempt under section 10(14)(ii), in terms of plain words of the statutory provisions under that section, the following conditions are required to be satisfied :the allowance should be granted to meet personal expenses of the assessee or to compensate him for the increased cost of living; Once the above conditions, as laid down under the statute are satisfied, the exemption is available in respect of the allowance granted to an assessee working in any transport system and to meet personal expenses of such assessee during the course of running of such transport from one place to another; To that extent, the legal position, on the facts of the case before us and in the light of developments which have been taken note of hereinabove, is that the exemption under section 10(14)(1) is also available for allowances granted to the assessee in respect of tours of the assessee to domestic destinations as well, and that section 10(14)(ii) cannot be said to have any application in respect of such allowances. CIT (101 TTJ 1005), the Tribunal, inter ali,4 observed as follows :6. We find that the basic reason of declining the exemption claimed by the assessee is that the authorities below are not satisfied about evidence of the assessee having actually spent the amount allowance for the purposes for which the same were granted. 8. The above circular was undoubtedly issued under the Income Tax Act, 1922 but then all the circulars issued under section 1922 Act, do not cease to hold good in law. In other words, to the extent the legal provisions of 1922 Act and 1961 Act are in pari materia, circulars and instructions issued under the 1922 Act will also hold good. The circular in view of the provisions of section 297(2)(k) it still holds good and continued to be in force. , to the extent to which such expenses are actually incurred being absolutely identical in both the Acts, the provisions of the above circular, in our humble understanding, apply under the 1961 Act as well. 144(E), or the corresponding rule, but then, as revenue itself has accepted applicability of section 10(14)(1) in respect of allowances drawn for travelling abroad in connection with the flying duties, there cannot be any good reason to decline exemption under section 10(14)(1) in respect of allowances paid for travelling within India. Once exemption under section 10(14)(1) is available in respect of these allowances, the same allowances cannot be subject-matter of exemption under section 10(14)(ii) as well. In these circumstances, and particularly bearing in mind the fact that revenue itself has now accepted that exemption under section 10(14)(1) is to be given for the allowances in connection with visits abroad, are of the view that the exemption of these allowances is to be granted under section 10(14)(i) for travelling within India as well. We, therefore, confirm the action of the Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard as well, and decline to interfere on this count as well.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '  Ajay, <i>for the Assessee</i> , 
 Rajnish Agarwal, <i>for the Revenue</i>.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-06-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => '',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">G.C. Gupta, J.M.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The short issue requiring our adjudication in this case is whether or not the allowances received by the assessee - who is a commercial pilot working for Indian Airlines Ltd. while he is away from his normal place of duty in connection with the flying duties, are exempt under section 10(14)(i) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, and if these are held to be exempt, to what extent exemption under section 10(14)(1) can be granted in the absence of actual evidence of expenditure incurred by the assessee.<p style="text-align: justify;">2. The assessment year involved in this appeal is 1990-91 and the assessment order in question is framed under section 144 read with section 147(a) of the Act.<p style="text-align: justify;">3. Grounds of appeal as taken by the revenue are as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in directing the assessing officer to allow exemption of allowances received on duty abroad under section 10(14)(ii) to the extent of 50 per cent of the allowances or Rs. 50,000 whichever is less, because of the following reasons :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) The assessee being an Indian Airlines on board crew, it cannot be said that the journey performed on board on trips abroad is same as journey performed on tour, so as to come within the ambit of clause (b) of Notification No. S.0.143(E), dated 21-2-1989.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Clause (b) of Notification No. S.O. 143(E), dated 21-2-1989 is not applicable to the facts of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Without prejudice to (i) and (ii) above, the assessee has produced no evidence, whatsoever either before the assessing officer or before the Commissioner (Appeals) to prove that the assessee, in fact had performed journey to foreign stations during the relevant previous year and incurred any expenditure on these hypothetical journey abroad.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The specific provision contained in clause (4) of Notification No. S.0.143(E), dated 21-2-1989 regarding any allowance granted to an employee working in any transport system to meet his personal expenditure during his duty performed in the course of running such transport from one place to another place, is applicable to the facts of this case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in setting aside the issue of charging interest under section 234 relying on the decision of Honble ITAT, Mumbai, in the case of Ms. Priti Pithawala v. ITO in ITA No. 63 82 /Mum. /2002, dated 12-3-2003 and has further erred in directing the assessing officer to calculate the interest under section 234A only for a limited period of two years for the following reasons :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) In the present case, no return of income was filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) In the present case, provisions of section 234(1)(b) is applicable and hence interest under section 234A is chargeable for the period commencing from the date immediately following the due date and ending with the date of completion of the assessment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this case, interest under section 234A has been correctly charged from the due date as per provisions of sections 234(1) and 234A(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.'<p style="text-align: justify;">4. The grounds of cross objection, as set out in the memorandum of cross objection filed by the assessee, are as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in directing the assessing officer to allow deduction under section 10(14)(i) of 50 per cent in respect of allowances received by the respondent while on international duty subject to maximum of Rs. 50,000 by ignoring the fact that the entire allowances received are exempt under section 10(14)(i) read with rules and notifications thereon.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in restricting the deduction as above especially in the light of the decision of Honble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Capt. V.K. Verma (ITA No. 5875/Delhi/96) in which the Honble Members in their order dated 24-8-2001 stated that the applicability of provisions of section 10(14)(i) was not examined by the Honble Members of ITAT, Delhi while deciding the case of Capt. Harminder Singh.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in not appreciating the fact that once the Honble ITAT, Mumbai has given directions to examine the deduction of various allowances under section 10(14)(i) in the case of Capt. V.K. Verma and the department has accordingly allowed part of the allowance as deduction under section 10(14)(i) read with rules and notifications thereon, there was no room for restricting the deduction which should be allowed in full.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in restricting the deduction as above without appreciating the fact that even under the amended provisions the exemption is allowable to the extent the same were used for the purpose for which the same were granted and the amendment did not vest the assessing officer powers to call for details of factual expenditure.'<p style="text-align: justify;">5. A materially identical issue came up for consideration before a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Capt. K.P. Singh, and vice versa. In the said case, the Tribunal has, inter alia, has held that in the light of the subsequent judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Capt. V.K. Verma v. Asstt. CIT and vice versa. In the said case, we have, inter alia, observed as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'2. The factual matrix giving rise to this litigation before us is like this. The assessee before us is a commercial pilot working for Air India Limited. On 30-6-1997, the assessee filed his income-tax return for the assessment year 1997-98 declaring income of Rs. 29,45,670. This return was processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Act, and the income so returned by the assessee was duly accepted. Subsequently, however, the assessing officer noticed that the assessee had claimed a deduction of Rs. 3,82,184 under section 10(14) and the same was not considered by the employer at the time of deducting tax at source. In other words, this claim of deduction of Rs. 3,82,184 was over and above the exemption granted by the employer, while estimating income chargeable to tax, for the purpose of computing tax deduction at source. It was in this backdrop that the case of the assessee was reopened and the assessee was called upon to substantiate the claim of exemption of Rs. 3,82,184. During the course of the ensuing assessment proceedings, the assessing officer took note of assessees contention that the employer only provides for hotel and breakfast, during assessees stay abroad, and rest of the expenses are to be borne out of the allowances granted by the employer. It was also noted that several allowances have been merged into a consolidated flying allowance, and thus, a portion of the allowance so paid everyday represents daily allowance for meals and other expenses incurred by the assessee on account of absence from normal place of duty. The Assessing Officer was, however, of the view that in the light of the Tribunals judgment in the case of Capt. Harminder Singh v. Income-tax Officer (62 ITD 78 Delhi) and in the light of notification numbers SO 144(E), dated 21-2-1989 and SO 487(E), dated 1-7-1992, exemption has to be allowed under section 10(14)(ii) and up to the extent of Rs. 3,000 per month. Accordingly, the assessing officer restricted the exemption, to the extent of Rs. 30,000, though it should have been, even as per this line of reasoning, Rs. 36,000 computed by taking Rs. 3,000 per month under section 10(14)(ii). Exemption was declined on the balance amount, and the income was thus assessed at Rs. 32,97,850. Aggrieved by the stand so taken by the assessing officer, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) took the view that so far as the allowances in respect of flights in India is concerned, the assessing officer was in deed justified in holding that the exemption is to be granted under section 10(14)(ii) and is to restricted to Rs. 3,000 per month. However, as regards the exemption in respect of the same allowances, so far as international flights are concerned, the Commissioner (Appeals) was of the view that the provisions of section 10(14)(i) will come into play. In coming to this conclusion, the Commissioner (Appeals) was also guided by observations made by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of Capt. V.K. Verma v. ITO and vice versa (ITA No. 5876/Delhi/96 and ITA No. 1493/Delhi/97). The Commissioner (Appeals) thereafter proceeded to observe as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Since section 140(14)(ii) read with rule 2BB covers only the situation where the allowances are received in India, therefore, the allowances received for flights operated outside India are to be brought with the scope of section 10(14)(1) of the Income-Tax Act. The said section has not prescribed any limit and was further limited the deduction to the extent such allowances are actually incurred for the purpose. Therefore, I hold that the appellant is entitled to relief under section 10(14)(i) of the Income-Tax Act and the expenses claimed by the appellant should have been incurred abroad and will have to be allowed under section 10(14)(i) of the Income-Tax Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Having so upheld the contention of the assessee in principle, however, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the assessee has not been able to furnish the copies of bills and vouchers for the actual expenses incurred abroad on lunch, dinner and other daily expenses. As to assessees contention that it was not possible to keep meticulous record of all such expenditure, the Commissioner (Appeals) added that 'I am unable to agree with the contention of the appellant for the simple reason that the expenditure has been claimed by the appellant on actual basis and therefore it is the duty of the appellant to prove the expenditure by leading necessary evidence'. A copy of dinner bill showing expenditure of US $ 40 on a single dinner was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that it did not pertain to the relevant previous year. The Commissioner (Appeals) then concluded that in the absence of any other evidence of actual expenditure, the assessee should be entitled deduction to the extent of 50 per cent of allowances received, or Rs. 50,000 whichever is less. In the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), thus, it has been held that the allowances are exempt under section 10(14)(1) of the Act, but, in the absence of evidence of actual expenditure, the CIT(A) has restricted the exemption to 50 per cent of the allowances granted to the assessee, or Rs. 50,000 - whichever is less. None of the parties is satisfied with this order. Revenue is aggrieved of CIT(A)s 'Allowing the allowances for flights received for flights abroad, operated outside India, under section 10(14)(i) on estimate basis for want of proof of expenses actually incurred which was not at all considered at the time of original assessment by the assessing officer'. Assessees grievance, on the other hand, is that his claim for exemption should be allowed in entirety which he has claimed at the rate of US Dollars 75 per day when he goes on duties outside India, and at the rate of Rs. 600 per day when he is outside his base in India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We have heard the rival contentions, perused material on record any duly considered factual matrix of the case as also the applicable legal position.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. One of the documents sighted before us, during the course of this hearing, was a revision order under section 264 dated 30-5-2003 in the case of Capt. U.A. Joglekar, passed by the very Commissioner of Income-Tax who has signed the authorisation memo dated 2-7-2003 for filing of this appeal before us. In this revision order, the Commissioner has, inter alia, observed as follows :.The assessee has, in this case, moved a petition under section 264 for the assessment year 1994-95 with regard to claim of exemption under section 10(14)(1) of the Income-tax Act. It was contended that this claim has not been allowed by the assessing officer in the course of the assessment. The assessees claim relates to the exemption under section 10(14)(i) read with notification made therein in respect of various allowances received while operating international flights. These allowances are received in local currency at the foreign station and, therefore, covered by the provisions of section 10(14)(1) and notification issued thereunder. Clause (b) of relevant Notification No. SO 143(E), dated 21-2-1989 reads as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'any allowance, whether granted on tour or for the period of journey in connection with transfer, to meet the ordinary daily charges incurred by an employee on account of absence from its normal place of duty'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">As per this notification, while deliberating on this issue, concurring with the view of my predecessor in a similar order... in the case of Ms. Shailaja Ramamurthy, I am of the opinion that the allowances paid outside the country, to the employees of Indian Airlines are within the scope of section 10(14)(1) and accordingly, in the absence of the evidence, 50 per cent of the expenditure so incurred should be allowed as deduction, limited to Rs. 50,000....<p style="text-align: justify;">6. The revision order dated 24-5-2002 passed by his predecessor, which has been referred to and concurred with in this order, is also relevant in this context. The said order reads as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The assessee has, in this case, moved a petition under section 264 for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 with regard to claim of exemption under section 10(14)(1) of the Income-Tax Act. It was contended that this claim has not been allowed by the assessing officer in the course of assessments. A reference in this connection was made by the authorised representative earlier on seeking clarification pertaining to the claim under section 10(14)(1). The Commissioner (Appeals) while deliberating on this issue, had also opined that the allowances paid outside the country to the employees of Indian Airlines are within scope of section 10(14)(i). Accordingly, an instruction of advisory nature was issued to the assessing officers stating that in the absence of evidence, 50 per cent of the expenditure so incurred should be allowed limited to Rs. 50,000. It would be significant to state that assessing officers in New Delhi have allowed the claim by restricting it to 60 per cent of the foreign allowance. Relevant portion of my instruction dated 14-3-2002 is cited below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I am of the opinion that in the cases pertaining to this charge, we may allow expenditure of 50 per cent which appears to be reasonable. This will only be with regard to the allowance paid on food, beverage, telephone and transportation. The claim of exemption will not be applicable for any other allowances which cannot be construed as f falling within the ambit of section 10(14)(i) as these are not paid to meet ordinary daily charges incurred by the employee on account of absence from his normal place of duty. This expenditure should, however, be limited to Rs. 50,000 only.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Further the assessing officers should substitute the allowance incorporated in the assessment order with the allowances indicated by Indian Airlines authorities, if required, and should also substitute salary as per Form No. 16 as against the estimated salary.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Accordingly, the assessing officer is directed to allow the assessees claim under section 10(14)(1) as per the above instruction.<p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is thus clear that the revenue itself has taken a stand that so far as international flights are concerned, the provisions of exemption under section 10(14)(i) are applicable, and that the assessee-pilot is entitled to exemption under section 10(14)(i) in respect of the same. The very Commissioner who challenges the impugned order, passed by the CIT(A) holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 10(14)(1) in respect of allowances received for international flights, has himself allowed the same exemption. It is difficult to reconcile between Commissioners giving the relief of exemption under section 10(14)(i), by exercising his revision powers under section 264, and the same Commissioners authorising filing of an appeal against an Appellate Commissioner granting absolutely identical relief by way of an appellate order.<p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the case of Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal : [2001]249ITR219(SC) , Honble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider whether it is open to revenue to accept a judgment in the case of one assessee, and appeal, against the identical judgment in the case of another. Their Lordships held that such a differential treatment on the same set of facts was not permissible in law, and observed that, 'It is not open to revenue to accept the judgment in the case of the assessee in that case and challenge its correctness in the case of another assessee, without just cause.' The same view was reiterated by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Berger Paints India Limited v. CIT : [2004]266ITR99(SC) , and followed by the Honble Delhi High Court in the cases of CWT v. RKKR Industries Private Limited 198 CTR 567 and CIT v. Neo Poly Pack Pvt. Ltd. : [2000]245ITR492(Delhi) . When it is not possible for the revenue to challenge an order of the appellate authority in one case and when it has accepted identical order of the appellate authority in another case, it cannot at all be open to the revenue to challenge the order of the appellate authority on an issue on which relief has been given by Commissioner himself, in other cases, by way of exercising revision jurisdiction in other cases. For this reason alone, the grievance raised by the revenue is not maintainable in law and deserves to be rejected in limine.<p style="text-align: justify;">9. There are, however, other reasons for rejecting revenues grievance on merits as well.<p style="text-align: justify;">10. It is important to appreciate that the sole and immediate reason of rejecting assessees claim for exemption under section 10(14)(1) is revenues reliance on applicability of section 10(14)(ii) read with Notification Nos. SO 144(E), dated 21-2-1989 and SO 487(E), dated 1-7-1992, as also Tribunals judgment in the case of Capt. Harminder Singh (supra). The fact that assessing officer has, without any application of mind, blindly followed Tribunals judgment in the case of Capt. Harminder Singh (supra), is also evident from assessing officers allowing exemption under section 10(14)(ii) only to the extent of Rs. 30,000 for the year, whereas, even as per applicable limit for the relevant previous year, that is at the rate of Rs. 3,000 the correct figure should have been Rs. 36,000. The apparent reason is that in Capt. Harminder Singhs case (supra), Tribunal had allowed exemption to the extent of Rs. 30,000 but then the assessment year involved in that case was 1993-94, and for the relevant previous year, the applicable limit was Rs. 1,000 per month till June, and for the rest of nine months the applicable limit was enhanced to Rs. 3,000 per month. That is how, i.e. Rs. 1,000 multiplied with 3 plus Rs. 3,000 multiplied with 9, the figure of Rs. 30,000 applied for the assessment year 1993-94. Yet, the Assessing Officer has adopted the same for the assessment year 1997-98 also. As for the reliance on notification numbers SO 144(E), dated 21-2-1989 and SO 487(E), dated 1-7-1992, these notifications ceased to be relevant after amendment of section 10(14) with effect from 1-7-1995. These things, as we pointed out, only show-how thoughtlessly the impugned assessment order is passed. It is also important to bear in mind the fact that in Capt. Harminder Singhs case (supra), the assessee was working on domestic sectors and it was for this reason that the Tribunal came to the conclusion that old notification SO 144(E), as it was then in force, applied. This notification admittedly applies to 'whole of India' only, and not beyond that. The exemption under section 10(14)(ii) is thus, even as per the revenue, available only in India and not outside India. In the present case, the exemption under section 10(14)(1) has been declined only on the ground that exemption under section 10(14)(ii) is available. Therefore, even going by the logic of the assessing officer, exemption under section 10(14)(i) cannot be declined because, assessee, while flying on international sectors, cannot be allowed exemption under section 10(14)(ii). This stand, even after taking note of Tribunals decision in the case of Capt. Harminder Singh (supra), has not only been approved by another Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Capt. V.K. Verma (supra) but has also been followed by the Commissioner in exercise of his revision jurisdiction by issuing orders under section 264 and in exercise of his supervisory jurisdiction by issuing administrative instructions. The very foundation on revenues arguments in support of non-applicability of section 10(14)(i) is thus devoid of any legally sustainable basis.<p style="text-align: justify;">11. The assessee, though working for an international carrier, operates on the domestic flights. The question then arises whether exemption under section 10(14)(i) is available in respect of the same allowances when the assessee has to stay in a place, outside his place of posting, in India. This takes us to an even more fundamental question and that is to what extent applicability of exemption under section 10(14)(ii) as was upheld by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Capt. Harminder Singh (supra) is now good in law, particularly after Tribunals subsequent order in the case of Capt. V.K. Verma (supra) and in the light of the stand being taken by the assessing officers and the Administrative Commissioners in the cases of the pilots. It is interesting to note that the Tribunal in Capt. V.K. Vermas case (supra), whose employer was the same as of Capt. Harminder Singh, and the revenue authorities have consistently held that to the extent the allowances are not covered by section 10(14)(ii), the same are to be treated as subject-matter of exemption under section 10(14)(i). In Capt. Vermas case (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, vide order dated 22-8-2001, observed that :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On careful perusal of the record, we find force in the contentions of the assessee that the facts of the impugned case are not identical to that of Harminder Singhs case (supra). As such the principle laid down in that case is not strictly applicable to the instant case. It is also obvious from Tribunals order in Harminder Singhs case that Tribunal did not have occasion to examine the issue of exemption of allowance under section 10(14)(i) of the Act, if the assessee is on flying duty abroad. Though the assessee has emphatically argued that its claims are covered under section 10(14)(i), we are of the view that since lower authorities have not applied their mind to this aspect, this matter should go back to the assessing officer for its reexamination in the light of assessees contentions and various notifications of the Board and relevant provisions of law. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the matter to the file of the assessing officer for re-examination in the terms indicated above.<p style="text-align: justify;">12. This order has been accepted by the revenue. In fact, when the matter was thus restored to the file of the assessing officer, the assessing officer finalized the assessment on 20-2-2002, by observing, inter alia, as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">As per the directions of the ITAT, the case was taken up for hearing. The counsel of the assessee has filed written submissions in this regard. He has also filed a copy of the order dated 19-12-2001 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) XXVII, Mumbai in the case of Neeta Kulkarni in Appeal No. CIT, XXVII/ITO, Wd 11(3)/96/2001-02. It was contended by the AR that the CIT (Appeals), in the above order, has held that the allowances paid while operating international flights are covered by exemption under section 10(14)(i) read with Notification No. SO 143(E), dated 28-2-1989 subject to verification of expenses actually incurred by the assessee while operating international flights.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The assessees AR has also filed a detailed note stating that Indian Airlines, employer, provides accommodation at foreign stations to the assessee on bread and breakfast basis. These are paid in local currency at foreign stations to meet out other expenditure on meals, refreshments, tea, transportation, telephone and other incidental expenses. It was claimed that these foreign allowances are in the nature of reimbursements and have been spent while performing official duties. The AR has further relied upon instruction No. 1107, dated 5-10-1977 and letter dated 30-3-1990 issued by the CBDT in support of his contention that these allowances are exempt under section 10(14)(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I have considered the submissions of the AR and details filed by him. I have also gone through the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai referred to above. Though the assessee has claimed that the allowances received by him have been spent for the purpose for which it were given, the assessee could not provide any supporting material /vouchers to substantiate his claim in this regard. Keeping in view the nature of expenditure to be incurred at foreign station, facilities provided by the employer and the amount of foreign allowance paid to the assessee I consider it reasonable to take 60 per cent of the foreign allowances as having been actually incurred and allow exemption under section 10(14)(i) read with Notification No. SO 143(E) .......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is thus clear that even as per the revenue authorities, the claim of exemption is allowable under section 10(14)(1) though only to the extent of 60 per cent in respect of allowances granted for the purpose of visits abroad in connection with the flying duties. The nature of allowances is admittedly the same for domestic and international visits, only the quantum of allowance and currency of allowance varies. That is a significant departure from revenues stand that the allowances cannot be said to be in the nature of allowances eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(1) at all. The revenue having taken the stand that the nature of allowances is such that it can be partly exempted under section 10(14)(1) when assessee visits abroad and when the exemption under section 10(14)(ii) is, therefore, unavailable, it cannot be open to revenue to now argue that provisions of section 10(14)(i) cannot be attracted at all in respect of the identical allowances for visiting Indian stations. To that extent, the principle laid down by the Tribunal in Capt. Harminder Singhs case (supra) has been modified by the Tribunal in the subsequent decisions, such as in the case of Capt. V.K. Verma (supra), and even by the revenue authorities in the assessments of other assessees. Once the revenue itself accepts that the nature of allowances is covered by section 10(14)(i) read with Notification No. S.O. 143(E), though in connection with flights abroad, the only surviving reason for rejection of claim under section 10(14)(i) in respect of domestic allowances is specific provision of section 10(14)(ii) governing the exemption in respect of domestic allowances.<p style="text-align: justify;">13. A plain reading of the revision orders passed under section 264 and administrative instructions issued by the Administrative Commission also shows that to the extent exemption under section 10(14)(ii) is not available in respect of the allowances, the field officers have considered the same allowances in respect of 'food, beverage, telephone and transportation', as eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(i). The only reason for rejecting the exemption under section 10(14)(1) thus is availability of exemption under section 10(14)(ii) in respect of those allowances. This surviving reason for rejection of claim of exemption under section 10(14)(1), however, rests on the fallacious assumption that the provisions of section 10(14)(i) and section 10(14)(ii) do not operate in mutually exclusive fields.<p style="text-align: justify;">14. We consider it necessary to reproduce the provisions of section 10(14) which are as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In computing the total income of a previous year of any person, any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not be included :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(14)	**		**		**		**		**</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) any such special allowance or benefit, not being in the nature of a perquisite with the meanings of clause (2) of section 17, specifically granted to meet expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in the performance of duties of an office or employment of profit, as may be prescribed, to the extent to which such expenses are actually incurred for that purpose;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) any such allowance granted to the assessee either to meet his personal expenses at the place where duties of his office or employment of profit are ordinarily performed by him or at the place where he ordinarily resides, or to compensate him for the increased cost of living as may be prescribed and to the extent may be prescribed :<p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that nothing in sub-clause (ii) shall apply to any allowance in the nature of personal allowance granted to him for performing duties of a special nature relating to his office unless such allowance is related to his place of posting or residence.<p style="text-align: justify;">15. We also consider it appropriate to reproduce the part of Rule 2BB under which the allowances paid for going abroad in connection with flying duties are exempted by the revenue and under which the allowances paid for going to other places inside India are exempted by the revenue :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Rule 2BB :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) For the purpose of clause (i) of sub section 14 of section 10, prescribed allowances, by whatever name called, shall be following :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) any allowance, whether granted on tour or for the period of journey in connection with transfer, to meet the ordinary daily charges incurred by an employee on account of absence from normal place of duty;<p style="text-align: justify;">(2) For the purpose of clause (ii) of sub-section (14) of section 10, prescribed allowances, by whatever name called, and the extent thereof, shall be following, namely,<p style="text-align: justify;">(i)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sl.No.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Name of the allowance</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Any allowance granted to an employee working in any transport system, to meet his personal expenditure during his duty performed in the course of running of such transport, from one place to another place, provided such employee is not in receipt of daily allowance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Place at which allowance is exempt </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Extent to which allowance is exempt</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Whole of India upto a</p><p style="text-align: justify;">70% of the allowance maximum of Rs. 3,000 per month<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. An analysis of section 10(14)(1) read with Rule 2BB(1)(b) indicates that essential ingredients of an allowance eligible for exemption under that section are as follow :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">the allowance or benefit should be specifically granted to meet expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in connection with the duties of an office or employment of profit;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">the allowance or benefit should not be in the nature of a perquisite as defined under section 17(2) of the Act;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">the exemption of allowance is restricted to the extent to which such expenses are actually incurred for that purpose;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">the allowance should be to meet ordinary daily charges on account of absence from normal place of duty.<p style="text-align: justify;">17. As for the nature of allowance which are exempt under section 10(14)(ii), in terms of plain words of the statutory provisions under that section, the following conditions are required to be satisfied :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">the allowance should be granted to meet personal expenses of the assessee or to compensate him for the increased cost of living;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">in case the allowance is granted to meet personal expenses of the assessee, the allowance should be to meet his personal expenses at</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) at the place where the duties of office or employment of profit are ordinarily performed; or</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) at the place where the assessee normally resides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Once the above conditions, as laid down under the statute are satisfied, the exemption is available in respect of the allowance granted to an assessee working in any transport system and to meet personal expenses of such assessee during the course of running of such transport from one place to another;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">the assessee should not be in receipt of a daily allowance; and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">the exemption of allowance is to the extent the allowance is prescribed at 70 per cent of the allowance up to a maximum of Rs. 3,000 per month so far as year before us is concerned.<p style="text-align: justify;">18. It is thus clear that so far as eligibility for exemption under section 10(14)(i) read with Rule 2BB(1)(b) is concerned, it has nothing to do with the place which assessee is to visit in the course of duties. The exemption under this section cannot be declined on the ground that the assessee was to visit places outside his normal place of duty in India, and not abroad. Whether an assessee is in India or is outside India, as long as allowance is granted to meet ordinary daily charges on account of absence from normal place of duty, the same is eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(1) read with Rule 2BB(1)(b)-of course subject to actual use condition but that is not relevant in the present context. Therefore, the normal interpretation of this provision, as accepted by the revenue, is that if an employee is posted in Mumbai and he travels to, say, London, the allowance that the assessee is granted to meet his ordinary daily charges, such as say on meals, beverages, refreshments, toiletries etc. on account of his absence from Mumbai, the same is eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(1) read with Rule 2BB(1)(b). The revenue also, therefore, accepts that allowances are specifically granted to meet expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in connection with the duties of an office, and are not in the nature of perquisite under section 17(2) of the Act. because without satisfying these conditions, the exemption under section 10(14)(i) could not have been granted at all in respect of the allowances. However, it is also important to appreciate that rule 2BB(1)(b) does not make a distinction between domestic destinations and foreign destinations. Therefore, once the revenue accepts that the allowances are granted to meet ordinary daily charges on account of absence from normal place of duty when assessee goes on flying duties abroad, it cannot be open to revenue to contend that so far as allowances to visit domestic destinations are concerned, the eligibility of exemption under section 10(14)(i) is not available. The exemption under section 10(14)(i) has, however, been denied apparently on the ground that the exemption under section 10(14)(ii) read with Rule 2BB(2)(iv) is available in respect of such allowances.<p style="text-align: justify;">19. Section 10(14)(ii) read with Rule 2BB(2)(iv), on the other hand, deals with the allowances which are granted to meet (a) increased cost of living; or to meet (b) personal expenses at the place where duties of office are performed or where the assessee ordinarily resides. An allowance can either be for personal expenses or for official expenses; it cannot be for official expenses as also for personal expenses at the same time. Therefore, once it is stand of the revenue that the allowances are granted to 'meet expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in connection with the duties of an office' since exemption under section 10(14)(i) read with Rule 2BB(1)(b) has been granted in respect of such allowances by the assessing officer himself and by the Commissioner, by way of revision orders under section 264, in respect of allowances in connection with flying duties aboard, merely because the places covered by the assessee in some of such visits are inside India, it cannot be said that the allowances are not granted to 'meet expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in connection with the duties of an office'. The purpose of the allowances remains in the same and if destination that the assessee visits makes any difference to the allowances, such difference is only in terms of quantum of allowance and the currency in which it is paid. These factors, by any stretch of logic, cannot have any bearing on the eligibility for exemption under section 10(14)(i). The very basis of denying exemption under section 10(14)(i), therefore, is no longer sustainable in law.<p style="text-align: justify;">20. When the allowances are admittedly granted for wholly, necessarily and exclusively for official purposes, there cannot be any occasion to invoke section 10(14)(ii) the scope of which is confined to expenses to meet increased cost of living or to meet personal expenses at the place where duties of office are performed or where the assessee resides. The expression place where the duties of his office or employment of profit are performed appearing in section 10(14)(ii) of the Act refers to a geographical location, ie. city, State, or the region, where the employee is posted, as is also evident from column 3 of Rule 2BB(2) which refers to geographical locations such as cities, States, altitude of the place where an employee is posted, and sea distance from Indian land, i.e., continental shelf and exclusive economic zone, where the assessee is posted in offshore installations. Therefore, it is the place of posting, which can be a geographical location in the present context, which is required to be treated as the place where duties of office are to be performed. The question of expenses, to meet which the allowances are given, becomes relevant only when the pilot steps out of the aircraft and stays in a place other than the place of his posting, and, therefore, these expenses cannot be said to be incurred during the performance of the duties or during the course of taking an aircraft from one place to another. A commercial pilot, in the course of performance of his duties, has to stay at various places not for performance of duties but in connection with performance of his duties. For example, if a Mumbai based commercial pilot has to stay in New Delhi overnight before he resumes or starts his flying duties on flights originating from there, he is to be treated as on tour to New Delhi in connection with his duties of office. The duties of his office include flying an aircraft, and he flies the aircraft at New Delhi also, but then his overnight stay in New Delhi cannot be said to be for flying an aircraft but can only be in connection with flying an aircraft. The allowances granted to the assessee are not for being in New Delhi while flying the aircraft but for staying in New Delhi to enable him to fly from New Delhi. Therefore, the allowances cannot be said to be for the purposes of meeting personal expenses at the place where duties of office are performed. It also not the revenues case that the allowances are granted to meet personal expenses where the assessee normally resides, because the question of these allowances comes into play only when the assessee goes out of the place where he normally resides. The allowances cannot, therefore, be said to have been granted for the purpose of meeting personal expenses of the place where the assessee resides or where the duties of office are performed. As for an allowance to meet increased cost of living, it can only refer to an allowance to supplement the cost of living and not to an allowance which is to meet the costs of ordinary daily charges on account from normal place of duty. The cost of living, in any event, only relevant for the place of the duties are normally performed, and not of the places where a person has to go in connection with performance of his duties. A place of duty, as we have discussed above, refers to a geographical location and, therefore, not an aircraft which cannot be stationary and has to move from place to place. It is also not in dispute that a daily allowance, though computed at hourly rate, is being paid to the assessee, and, for this reason also, rule 2BB(2)(iv) has no application in the cases where daily allowance is paid. Last few words of this entry are 'provided such employee is not in receipt of daily allowance'. For all these reasons, the provisions of section 10(14)(ii) and also of Rule 2BB(2)(iv) are not applicable on the facts of this case.<p style="text-align: justify;">21. The line of distinction between an allowance to meet expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively for the performance of duties, though prima facie of a personal nature, and an allowance to meet personal expenses simplicitor is very significant. Take for example, and allowance to meet the costs of transfer, packing of transportation of personal effects on transfer of an employee. Such an allowance, on the face of it, appears to be an allowance to meet personal expenses of an employee but since his transfer is in connection with the duties of an office, the same is treated as having been granted to meet the expenses to meet expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in connection with the duties of an office and an allowance granted to meet the cost of travel on tour or transfer' appearing in Rule 2BB(1)(a) and Explanation to the said Rule categorically so clarifies. In contrast to this example, let us take the case of Remote Locality Allowance paid to an employee who is posted in Nicobar Island. This allowance is covered by Rule 2BB(2)(2) to the extent of Rs. 1,300 per month, but there is no condition attached about the use of this allowance. Once an employee is posted in Nicobar Island, such a posting of the employee, by itself, entitles him the allowance and this is to meet the personal expenses of the employee. This allowance is therefore to meet personal expenses at the place of posting, as is the mandate of section 10(14)(ii). However, when the same employee travels back to mainland in connection with his duties and he gets and allowance to meet his ordinary daily charges on account of absence from normal place of duty, he will be entitled to exemption under section 10(14)(1) in respect of such allowances. In both the situations, allowance is to meet the personal expenses because, after all, ordinary daily charges are also personal expenses in nature but then personal expenses at the place of duty and personal expenses, necessitated by same is the case employee travels outside the place where he is posted and he gets an allowance to meet the costs of boarding and lodging, which is undoubtedly a personal expense in nature, the allowance so granted is treated as and to meet the ordinary daily charges incurred by an employee on account of absence from normal place of duty and thus 'wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in connection with the duties of an office or employment of profit'. Therefore, an allowance granted to a commercial pilot to meet his cost of meals, beverages, telephone and laundry etc. cannot be said to be for the purpose of meeting the increased cost of living as it is to meet the costs of ordinary daily charges on account of absence from normal place of duty. It is thus clear that the provisions of section 10(14)(ii) read with Rule 2BB(2)(iv) have no application in case the allowances are found to be covered by the provisions of section 10(14)(i) read with Rule 2BB(1)(b), and vice versa. These two sections operate in mutually exclusive are as inasmuch as application of one of the section is to the exclusion of the other section. In other words, revenue having accepted the allowances granted to the assessee are covered by section 10(14)(1), there is no room to invoke the provisions of section 10(14)(ii). It is materially different from the case of Capt. Harminder Singh (supra) wherein there was a categorical finding by the Tribunal that the allowances in question are not covered by the provisions of section 10(14)(1) read with Notification No. S.O. 143(E) which is in pari materia with Rule 2BB(1)(a) and (b), but that is no longer the case as revenue itself has allowed exemption under section 10(14)(i) read with Rule 2BB(1)(b) in respect of identical allowances. To that extent, the legal position, on the facts of the case before us and in the light of developments which have been taken note of hereinabove, is that the exemption under section 10(14)(1) is also available for allowances granted to the assessee in respect of tours of the assessee to domestic destinations as well, and that section 10(14)(ii) cannot be said to have any application in respect of such allowances.<p style="text-align: justify;">22. For the reasons set out above, we are of the considered view that, in principle, provisions of section 10(14)(1) will apply to the allowances received by the assessee for tours to places inside as also outside India, and the assessee will, accordingly, be eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(1) read with Rule 2BB(1)(b) in respect of such allowances.<p style="text-align: justify;">23. The next question then arises as to what is the extent to which exemption of allowances, in the absence of any evidence for actual use of allowance for the purpose for which such allowances are granted, can be granted under section 10(14)(1). Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed exemption to the extent of 50 per cent of allowances or Rs. 50,000, whichever is lower. It is difficult to comprehend as to how the quantum of allowance can determine the amount actually spent by the employee; in fact, it is the other way round. It is understandable that actual expenditure by the employees influences the quantum of allowance fixed by the employer, but not vice versa. The ceiling of exemption to the extent of 50 per cent of allowances is, therefore, devoid of any rationale. Similarly, the monetary ceiling of Rs. 50,000 per annum on the exemption of allowances under section 10(14)(i) is even more unfounded. That would be equating expenditure incurred by an employee who is on tour for, say, 180 days with someone who has been on tour for, say, 8 days. The basis for adopting this figure of Rs. 50,000 is also far from clear, and appears to be arbitrary. The quantum of exemption of allowances, as decided by the Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, does not meet our approval.<p style="text-align: justify;">24. The issue regarding extent to which exemption can be granted in the absence of evidence of actual expenditure, also came up before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of one Madanlal Mohanlal Narang, an employee of the shipping Corporation of India. In the said order dated 2 1 st April, 2006, reported as Madanlal Mohanlal Narang v. Assn. CIT (101 TTJ 1005), the Tribunal, inter ali,4 observed as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We find that the basic reason of declining the exemption claimed by the assessee is that the authorities below are not satisfied about evidence of the assessee having actually spent the amount allowance for the purposes for which the same were granted. A lot of emphasis is laid on the fact that section 10(14)(1) provides any allowance for the purpose of meeting expenses wholly necessarily and exclusively incurred for the purpose of official duties, as may be prescribed, but the exemption is available only to the extent 'to the which such expenses are actually incurred for that purposes'. The assessing officer has disallowed the exemption only on the basis that there were insufficient proof for the expenses having been actually incurred. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has also held that the appellant has not produced evidence regarding actual use of the allowances for the purpose for which the same were granted. Unlike the requirements of section 10(14)(ii) which provide for exemption of a prescribed allowance to the extent prescribed, under section 10(14)(i) exemption is indeed confined to the extent to which an exempt allowance is actually spent for the purposes for which such allowance is granted. In other words, actual use of an allowance is one of the conditions precedent for exemption under section 10(14)(1). This is in sharp contrast with the exemption provisions of section 10(14)(ii) under which even the quantum of exemption is to be prescribed by the Rules. Having taken note of this significant distinction, however, we much also appreciate the background in which this actual use condition was brought in the statute and true connotations thereof in the context of section 10(14)(i).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The expression to the extent to which such expenses are actually incurred, as finds place in section 10(14)(1), is not new to the Income-tax Act. It was first introduced, with effect from 1-4-1955, in section 4(3)(vi) of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922 which dealt with the exemption of allowances to the salaried employees. This amendment was made in the backdrop of Honble Bombay High Courts judgment in the case of Tejaji Frasaram Kharwalla v. CIT : [1948]16ITR260(Bom) wherein Their Lordships had held that exemption under section 4(3)(vi) was available even if portion of the allowance was not consumed and stood as surplus in the hands of the employees. Subsequently, though this decision was reversed by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Tejaji Frasaram Kharwalla : [1968]67ITR95(SC) , not before section 4(3)(vi) was amended, with effect from 1-4-1955, by Finance Act, 1955. This amendment, it appears, resulted in considerable apprehension amongst the salaried employees as to how can they be expected to maintain meticulous details and evidence of expenditure incurred by them for the actual usage of allowance. To allay these apprehensions, the Central Board of Direct Taxes on 1-8-1955, issued a circular which is reproduced below for ready reference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Special allowance or benefit being reasonable and not disproportionately high - No details of expenses actually incurred need be asked for the purpose of granting exemption under section 4(3)(vi) of 1922 Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The exemption under section 4(3)(vi) in respect of any special allowance or benefit will be available from the assessment year 1955-56 only to the extent of the sanctioned amounts. Generally speaking, where the specific allowance are reasonable with reference to the nature of the duties performed by the assessee and are not disproportionately high compared to the salary received by him, not attempt will ordinarily be made to call for details of the expenses actually incurred by him with a view to disentitling him to some extent from the exemption. An enquiry will, of course, be justified and will be made in cases where the allowances are prima facia unreasonably high.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Source: Direct Taxes Circulars</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Volume 1 - 1994 Edition - Page 1.130</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is, therefore, clear that even as the provisions were amended so as to allow the exemption of allowance only to the extent the allowances were used for the purposes for which the same were granted, even in this amendment did not vest the assessing officers powers to call for details of actual expenditure unless, generally speaking, the allowances are unreasonably high vis-a-vis salaries of the assessee or with reference to the nature of duties performed by the assessees.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The above circular was undoubtedly issued under the Income Tax Act, 1922 but then all the circulars issued under section 1922 Act, do not cease to hold good in law. Section 297(2)(k) specifically provides that notwithstanding the repeal of Income Tax Act, 1922, amongst other things, any instructions issued under any provisions of the repealed Act shall, so far as not inconsistent with the corresponding provisions of Income-Tax Act, 1961, deemed to have been issued under the corresponding provisions of the new Act, and shall continue to remain in force accordingly. In other words, to the extent the legal provisions of 1922 Act and 1961 Act are in pari materia, circulars and instructions issued under the 1922 Act will also hold good. The circular in view of the provisions of section 297(2)(k) it still holds good and continued to be in force. The expression used i.e., to the extent to which such expenses are actually incurred being absolutely identical in both the Acts, the provisions of the above circular, in our humble understanding, apply under the 1961 Act as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. in the light of the aforesaid circular it is not open to the revenue to call for the details of expenses actually incurred unless the specific allowance are disproportionately high compared to the salary received by him or unreasonable with reference to the nature of the duties performed by the assessee. It is, however, not the case of the revenue that the allowance granted to the assessee was unreasonable or excessive having regard to the salary of the assessee or the legitimate minimum requirement for the purpose for which the allowances were granted. We have also noted that the quantum of these allowances is prima facie reasonable vis-a-vis salary of the assessee and the purposes which the allowances were given....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is thus clear that unless the quantum of allowances in respect of which exemption under section 10(14)(i) is claimed is found to be excessive or unreasonable, there cannot be any occasion for the assessing officer to call for the actual evidence of expenditure.<p style="text-align: justify;">25. To demonstrate what can be considered reasonable allowance, learned counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to a copy of the circular # Q/FD/695/1/90, dated 28-3-1995 issued by the Government of India (Ministry of External Affairs) which sets out the rate at which a Government servant is entitled to daily allowance when he travels to various countries. The rate at which daily allowance is granted to the Government servants for some of the countries is as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Australia</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 75</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Austria</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 68</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Bahrain</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 51</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Canada</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 54</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Chaina</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 68</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Germany</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 75</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Hong Kong</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 75</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Ethiopia</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 50</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Indonesia</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 60</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Japan</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 75</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Kenya</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 50</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Korea</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 70</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Kuwait</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 74</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Malaysia</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 50</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Mauritius</p><p style="text-align: justify;">us $ 50</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Russian Federation</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 75</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Switzerland</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 58</p><p style="text-align: justify;">UAE</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 61</p><p style="text-align: justify;">UK</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 75</p><p style="text-align: justify;">USA</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 75</p><p style="text-align: justify;">These daily allowances are over and above the hotel charges and local conveyance expenses which are allowed on actual expense basis in the approved list of hotels, but wherever breakfast is included in the hotel tariff, the daily allowance is reduced by 10 per cent. On the strength of this Government circular, learned counsel contends that the allowance at the rate of US $ 75 is reasonable. It is, therefore, argued that to the extent of US $ 75 per day, the allowance granted to the assessee can be treated as a daily allowance to meet ordinary daily charges on account of absence from normal place of duty.<p style="text-align: justify;">26. Learned Departmental Representative vehemently contends that even if the allowance is granted at the rates prescribed by the Government, a person getting such an allowance is under an obligation to maintain record about evidences of expenses having been actually incurred. In the absence of evidence of allowance having actually been spent, according to the learned Departmental Representative, exemption under section 10(14)(i) in respect of the same will not be admissible. That contention, for the reasons set out by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Madanlal Mohanlal Narang (supra), cannot be accepted. The allowances fixed by the Government of India cannot be said to excessive or unreasonable vis-a-vis salaries of the employees or the purposes for which the allowances are granted, and, therefore, it cannot be open to the assessing officer to demand evidence of actual expenditure in respect of such allowances or in respect of similar allowances, to the persons drawing comparable salaries, of the same quantum. Keeping in view of the nature of job in aviation sector, as also keeping in mind the fact that aviation crew is generally required to stay in premium five star hotels where costs are high, we are of the considered view that the daily allowance at the rates prescribed for the Government employees which ranges between US $ 50 to US $ 75 per day (minus 10 per cent for the breakfast which is provided to the assessee by the airline employer), to meet the costs of meals, beverages and other incidental expenses, cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable allowance. To that extent, we accept the contention of the assessee. We direct the assessing officer to accordingly grant exemption under section 10(14)(i) to the allowances, by adopting daily rates so fixed by the Government of India as the maximum permissible rate eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(i) without productions of evidence of actual expenditure, out of the consolidated flying allowances received by the assessee. In case, however, the allowance actually received by the assessee for a particular day is less than the daily allowances fixed by the Government of India, the exemption will be restricted to the actual allowance received by the assessee.<p style="text-align: justify;">27. In order that the above directions can be given effect by the assessing officer, the assessee shall provide for the details of stay abroad in connection with the performance of duties of his office, and compute the exempt portion of daily allowance at the rates specified in the Government circular referred to above. Upon furnishing of these details by the assessee, the assessing officer shall grant exemption under section 10(14)(i) in respect of the allowances in the terms indicated above.<p style="text-align: justify;">28. We now come to the quantum of allowance to be treated as exempt under section 10(14)(i) in respect of allowances granted to the assessee to meet ordinary daily charges during the period he is away from his base station but is in India.<p style="text-align: justify;">29. The assessee has contended that a sum of Rs, 600 per day in respect of the above are fair and reasonable. No material has been brought on record by any of the authorities below to establish, or even indicate, that this quantum of allowance is excessive or unreasonable. We agree with learned counsels contention that having regard to high prices of meals and other incidental expenses at the places the airline crew members are required to stay in, a sum of Rs. 600 per day is hardly enough to meet the costs of two meals. We, therefore, see no reasons to reject the claim of the assessee. We direct the assessing officer to accordingly grant exemption under section 10(14)(i) to the allowances, by adopting daily rates so fixed by the Government of India as the maximum permissible rate eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(i) without productions of evidence of actual expenditure, out of the consolidated flying allowances received by the assessee. In case, however, the allowance actually received by the assessee for a particular day of stay in India, outside the place of posting, is less than Rs. 600 per day, the exemption will be restricted to the amount of actual allowance received. In order that the above directions can be given effect by the assessing officer, the assessee shall provide for and substantiate the details of stay in India outside the place of posting, in connection with the performance of duties of his office and compute the exempt portion of daily allowance at the rate of Rs. 600 per day as discussed above. Upon furnishing of these details by the assessee, the assessing officer shall grant exemption under section 10(14)(i) in respect of the allowances in the terms indicated above.<p style="text-align: justify;">30. For the reasons set out above, we uphold the contentions of the assessee in the terms indicated above. The matter will, however, go back to the file of the assessing officer for the limited purposes of quantification of relief in terms of our observations in the foregoing paragraphs.'<p style="text-align: justify;">6. The only material difference in this case is that the quantum of allowances is fixed by the airlines, and therefore the assessee has claimed that the entire allowance is exempt under section 10(14). The Commissioner (Appeals) has, however, allowed the exemption under section 10(14)(i), to the extent of Rs. 50,000 or 50 per cent of the allowance whichever is less, so far as allowances paid for travelling outside India are concerned. As regards the allowances paid for travelling inside India are concerned, the Commissioner (Appeals), has upheld the exemption under section 10(14)(ii) read with Notification No. 144(E) (Item No. 4) up to the prescribed limit, i.e., Rs. 1,000 per month.<p style="text-align: justify;">7. As regards the exemption of allowances for travel outside India is concerned, as we have noted above, the Commissioner himself, in exercise of his powers under section 264 and also by issuing administrative instructions, has accepted that exemption under section 10(14)(1) is permissible in respect of the same. Once the Administrative Commissioner accepts the position regarding applicability of exemption under section 10(14)(1) read with Notification No. 143(E), or under corresponding rule under the Income-Tax Rules, for these allowances when assessee travels abroad in connection with the flying duties, it cannot be open to the revenue to take a stand that those very allowances cease to be of the nature as to be covered by section 10(14)(1) read with the Notification No. 143(E). The only reason of disallowance was the applicability of section 10(14)(ii) read with Notification No. 144(E), or the corresponding rule, but then, as revenue itself has accepted applicability of section 10(14)(1) in respect of allowances drawn for travelling abroad in connection with the flying duties, there cannot be any good reason to decline exemption under section 10(14)(1) in respect of allowances paid for travelling within India. Once exemption under section 10(14)(1) is available in respect of these allowances, the same allowances cannot be subject-matter of exemption under section 10(14)(ii) as well. In any event, as we have noted earlier, section 10(14)(1) and section 10(14)(ii) operate in mutually exclusive areas. In Capt. Harminder Singhs case (supra), it was not the revenues stand that these allowances, when an employee travels abroad, will be eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(1). In any case, for the detailed reasons set out in the case of Capt. K.P. Singh v. Asstt. CIT and vice versa, allowances eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(ii) and section 10(14)(i) are operate in mutually exclusive areas and once an allowance is accepted to be eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(1), for that reason alone, eligibility for exemption under section 10(14)(ii) cannot be available. In these circumstances, and particularly bearing in mind the fact that revenue itself has now accepted that exemption under section 10(14)(1) is to be given for the allowances in connection with visits abroad, are of the view that the exemption of these allowances is to be granted under section 10(14)(i) for travelling within India as well.<p style="text-align: justify;">8. The next question then is of the quantum of allowances up to which the allowances are to be treated as exempt and whether the exemption can be granted in the absence of the evidences of actual expenditure. This question has already been addressed to in the case of Madanlal Mohan lal Narangv. Asstt. CIT referred to and extracted in the case of Capt. K.P. Singh v. CIT and vice versa by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal. In the said case, the Tribunal has concluded as follow :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">. . . it is not open to the revenue to call for the details of expenses actually incurred unless the specific allowances are disproportionately high compared to the salary received by him or unreasonable with reference to the nature of the duties performed by the assessee. It is, however, not the case of the revenue that the allowance granted to the assessee was unreasonable or excessive having regard to the salary of the assessee or the legitimate minimum requirement for the purpose for which the allowances were granted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the present case also, it is not the revenues case that the allowances received by the assessee are excessive or unreasonable vis-a-vis the salary of the assessee or the purposes for which the same are granted. No material has been brought before us to indicate that the allowances are excessive or unreasonable. However, on the lines of the view that we have decided in the case of Capt. K.P. Singh (supra), we think it fit and proper to restrict the exemption to the rate of daily allowance fixed by the Government of India, so far as foreign visits are concerned. These daily allowance rate have been set out earlier in this order while quoting extracts from our order in the case of Capt. K.P. Singh (supra). We direct the assessing officer to accordingly grant exemption under section 10(14)(i) to the allowances, by adopting daily rates so fixed by the Government of India as the maximum permissible rate eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(1) without productions of evidence of actual expenditure, out of the consolidated flying allowances received by the assessee. In case, however, the allowance actually received by the assessee for a particular day is less than the daily allowance fixed by the Government of India, the exemption will be restricted to the actual allowance received by the assessee. In order that the above directions can be given effect by the assessing officer, the assessee shall provide for the details of stay abroad in connection with the performance of duties of his office, and compute the exempt portion of daily allowance at the rates specified in the Government circular referred to above. Upon furnishing of these details by the assessee, the assessing officer shall grant exemption under section 10(14)(i) in respect of the allowances in the terms indicated above. We now come to the quantum of allowance to be treated as exempt under section 10(14)(i) in respect of allowances granted to the assessee to meet ordinary daily charges during the period he is away from his base station but is in India. In the case of Capt. K.P. Singh (supra) a commercial pilot working for Air India Limited, we have held that having regard to high prices of meals and other incidental expenses at the places the airline crew members are required to stay in, a sum of Rs. 600 per day, or the actual allowance - whichever is less, to be allowed exemption under section 10(14)(1). We see no reasons to take any other view of the matter in the present case. Accordingly, we direct the assessing officer to accordingly grant exemption under section 10(14)(1) to the allowances, up to an amount of Rs. 600 per day without productions of evidence of actual expenditure, out of the total flying allowances received by the assessee for a day. As for the absence from normal place of duty for less than one day but more than 12 hours, the limit of exemption under section 10(14)(1), in accordance with the Government of India rules, will be the same. If this period is 6 hours or less, no portion of the amount can be taken as exempt. Where however, such period is less than 12 hours but 6 hours or more, the exemption will be confined to 70 per cent of the limit i.e., Rs. 420. In case, however, the allowance actually received by the assessee for a particular day of stay in India, outside the place of posting, is less than the amounts so specified above, the exemption will be restricted to the amount of actual allowance received. in order that the above directions can be given effect by the assessing officer, the assessee shall provide for and substantiate the details of stay in India outside the place of posting, in connection with the performance of duties of his office and compute the exempt portion of daily allowance at the rate of Rs. 600 per day as discussed above. In case, however, the visit to place outside the place of duty is for less than one day. Upon furnishing of these details by the assessee, the assessing officer shall grant exemption under section 10(14)(i) in respect of the allowances in the terms indicated above.<p style="text-align: justify;">9. For the reasons set out above, while we reject the contention of the revenue so far as the issue of grant of exemption to impugned allowances is concerned, and we uphold the contentions of the assessee in the terms indicated above. The matter will, however, go back to the file of the assessing officer for the limited purposes of quantification of relief in terms of our observations in the foregoing paragraphs.<p style="text-align: justify;">10. The only other issue left is revenues grievance against Commissioner (Appeal)s direction to the effect that interest under section 234A is to be charged only for the period for which the assessee was permitted to file the income-tax returns i.e., for two years. This issue is also covered in favour of the assessee by a series of orders of various Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal, copies of which were filed before us at pages 4 to 23 of the paper book. In these decisions, namely in the cases of Capt. EB Karadia, Ms. Priti Pithawala v. ITO (2003) 129 Taxman 79 (Mum) Nupur Rohinda, F.S. Vajifdar, Ms. Sidha Salian and Capt. A.K. Munial, the Tribunal has consistently taken the view that the matter is required to be restored to the file of the assessing officer for fresh computation of interest chargeable under section 234A of the Act only for the period for which it was possible for the assessee to file the income-tax return and in the light of Tribunal in the case of Ms. Priti Pithawala v. ITO (2003) 129 Taxman (Mag.) 79. We see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by the Co-ordinate Benches. The Commissioner (Appeals) has only restored to the file of the assessing officer for re-computation of interest under section 234A in terms of our above observations. We, therefore, confirm the action of the Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard as well, and decline to interfere on this count as well.<p style="text-align: justify;">11. In the result, while the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2006]9SOT322(NULL)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Capt. H.R. Vinayak',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '367002'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]
Code Context
//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'ito, Ward 27(1)(3), Mumbai Vs. Capt. H.R. Vinayak Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 1 => 'section 144',
			(int) 2 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 3 => 'section 234',
			(int) 4 => 'section 234A',
			(int) 5 => 'section 234(1)(b',
			(int) 6 => 'section 234A',
			(int) 7 => 'section 234A',
			(int) 8 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 9 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 10 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 11 => 'section 143(1)(a',
			(int) 12 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 13 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 14 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 15 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 16 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 17 => 'section 264',
			(int) 18 => 'section 264',
			(int) 19 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 20 => 'section 264',
			(int) 21 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 22 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 23 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 24 => 'section 264',
			(int) 25 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 26 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 27 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 28 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 29 => 'section 264',
			(int) 30 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 31 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 32 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 33 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 34 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 35 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 36 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 37 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 38 => 'section 264',
			(int) 39 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 40 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 41 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 42 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 43 => 'section 17',
			(int) 44 => 'Rule 2BB',
			(int) 45 => 'section 14',
			(int) 46 => 'section 10',
			(int) 47 => 'section 10',
			(int) 48 => 'section 17(2',
			(int) 49 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 50 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 51 => 'section 17(2',
			(int) 52 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 53 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 54 => 'section 264',
			(int) 55 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 56 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 57 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 58 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 59 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 60 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 61 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 62 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 63 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 64 => 'section 10(14)(i).7',
			(int) 65 => 'the Income Tax Act',
			(int) 66 => 'section 1922 Act',
			(int) 67 => 'Income Tax Act',
			(int) 68 => 'section 297(2)(k',
			(int) 69 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 70 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 71 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 72 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 73 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 74 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 75 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 76 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 77 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 78 => 'section 264',
			(int) 79 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 80 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 81 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 82 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 83 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
			(int) 84 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 85 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 86 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 87 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 88 => 'section 10(14)(i',
			(int) 89 => 'section 234A',
			(int) 90 => 'section 234A of the Act',
			(int) 91 => 'section 234A'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Gupta',
			(int) 1 => 'Priti',
			(int) 2 => 'V.K. Verma',
			(int) 3 => 'Harminder',
			(int) 4 => 'V.K. Verma',
			(int) 5 => 'Bench',
			(int) 6 => 'K.P. Singh',
			(int) 7 => 'V.K. Verma v. Asstt',
			(int) 8 => 'Harminder Singh v. Income-tax Officer',
			(int) 9 => 'V.K. Verma v. ITO',
			(int) 10 => 'U.A. Joglekar',
			(int) 11 => 'Shailaja Ramamurthy',
			(int) 12 => 'Neo Poly Pack Pvt',
			(int) 13 => 'Notification Nos',
			(int) 14 => 'Harminder Singh',
			(int) 15 => 'Harminder Singh',
			(int) 16 => 'Harminder Singhs',
			(int) 17 => 'Harminder Singhs',
			(int) 18 => 'Harminder Singh',
			(int) 19 => 'Bench',
			(int) 20 => 'V.K. Verma',
			(int) 21 => 'Bench',
			(int) 22 => 'Harminder Singh',
			(int) 23 => 'V.K. Verma',
			(int) 24 => 'V.K. Vermas',
			(int) 25 => 'Harminder Singh',
			(int) 26 => 'Vermas',
			(int) 27 => 'Bench',
			(int) 28 => 'Harminder Singhs',
			(int) 29 => 'V.K. Verma',
			(int) 30 => 'Harminder Singh',
			(int) 31 => 'Bench',
			(int) 32 => 'Madanlal Mohanlal Narang',
			(int) 33 => 'Madanlal Mohanlal Narang v. Assn',
			(int) 34 => 'Tejaji Frasaram Kharwalla v.',
			(int) 35 => 'Lordships',
			(int) 36 => 'Tejaji Frasaram Kharwalla',
			(int) 37 => 'Bench',
			(int) 38 => 'above.30',
			(int) 39 => 'Rs',
			(int) 40 => 'Harminder Singhs',
			(int) 41 => 'K.P. Singh v. Asstt',
			(int) 42 => 'Madanlal Mohan',
			(int) 43 => 'Narangv',
			(int) 44 => 'K.P. Singh v. CIT',
			(int) 45 => 'Bench',
			(int) 46 => 'K.P. Singh',
			(int) 47 => 'K.P. Singh',
			(int) 48 => 'K.P. Singh',
			(int) 49 => 'Rs',
			(int) 50 => 'Benches of',
			(int) 51 => 'EB Karadia',
			(int) 52 => 'Priti Pithawala',
			(int) 53 => 'Mum',
			(int) 54 => 'Nupur Rohinda',
			(int) 55 => 'F.S. Vajifdar',
			(int) 56 => 'Sidha Salian',
			(int) 57 => 'A.K. Munial',
			(int) 58 => 'Priti',
			(int) 59 => 'Taxman',
			(int) 60 => 'Mag',
			(int) 61 => 'Benches'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Indian Airlines Ltd.',
			(int) 1 => 'the Income-Tax Act',
			(int) 2 => 'Indian Airlines',
			(int) 3 => 'S.0.143(E',
			(int) 4 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
			(int) 5 => 'S.0.143(E',
			(int) 6 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
			(int) 7 => 'Pithawala v. ITO',
			(int) 8 => 'ITA No',
			(int) 9 => 'the Income-Tax Act',
			(int) 10 => 'Income-Tax (Appeals',
			(int) 11 => 'Income-Tax (Appeals',
			(int) 12 => 'Income-Tax (Appeals',
			(int) 13 => 'Income-Tax (Appeals',
			(int) 14 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 15 => 'Asstt',
			(int) 16 => 'CIT',
			(int) 17 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 18 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 19 => 'CIT',
			(int) 20 => 'inter alia',
			(int) 21 => 'Air India Limited',
			(int) 22 => 'ITD',
			(int) 23 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
			(int) 24 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
			(int) 25 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
			(int) 26 => 'the Delhi Bench',
			(int) 27 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 28 => 'ITA No',
			(int) 29 => 'The Commissioner (Appeals',
			(int) 30 => 'the Income-Tax Act',
			(int) 31 => 'the Income-Tax Act',
			(int) 32 => 'the Income-Tax Act',
			(int) 33 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
			(int) 34 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
			(int) 35 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
			(int) 36 => 'The Commissioner (Appeals',
			(int) 37 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
			(int) 38 => 'Income-Tax',
			(int) 39 => 'inter alia',
			(int) 40 => 'Indian Airlines',
			(int) 41 => 'the Income-Tax Act',
			(int) 42 => 'The Commissioner (Appeals',
			(int) 43 => 'Indian Airlines',
			(int) 44 => 'Indian Airlines',
			(int) 45 => 'Appellate',
			(int) 46 => 'Union of India',
			(int) 47 => 'Honble Supreme Court',
			(int) 48 => 'the Honble Supreme Court',
			(int) 49 => 'Berger Paints India Limited',
			(int) 50 => 'the Honble Delhi High Court',
			(int) 51 => 'CWT v. RKKR Industries Private Limited 198',
			(int) 52 => 'CTR',
			(int) 53 => 'CIT',
			(int) 54 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 55 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 56 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 57 => 'the Administrative Commissioners',
			(int) 58 => 'the Tribunal in Capt',
			(int) 59 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 60 => 'Harminder Singhs',
			(int) 61 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 62 => 'Board',
			(int) 63 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
			(int) 64 => 'inter alia',
			(int) 65 => 'Commissioner (Appeals',
			(int) 66 => 'Neeta Kulkarni',
			(int) 67 => 'CIT',
			(int) 68 => 'XXVII/ITO',
			(int) 69 => 'AR',
			(int) 70 => 'the CIT (Appeals',
			(int) 71 => 'AR',
			(int) 72 => 'Indian Airlines',
			(int) 73 => 'AR',
			(int) 74 => 'CBDT',
			(int) 75 => 'AR',
			(int) 76 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
			(int) 77 => 'the Tribunal in Capt',
			(int) 78 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 79 => 'the Administrative Commission',
			(int) 80 => 'Extent',
			(int) 81 => 'State',
			(int) 82 => 'continental',
			(int) 83 => 'Remote Locality Allowance',
			(int) 84 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 85 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
			(int) 86 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 87 => 'Corporation of India',
			(int) 88 => 'CIT',
			(int) 89 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 90 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
			(int) 91 => 'the Indian Income-Tax Act',
			(int) 92 => 'Honble Bombay High Courts',
			(int) 93 => 'the Honble Supreme Court',
			(int) 94 => 'CIT',
			(int) 95 => 'the Central Board of Direct Taxes',
			(int) 96 => 'Income-Tax Act',
			(int) 97 => 'the Government of India',
			(int) 98 => 'Ministry of External Affairs',
			(int) 99 => 'Government',
			(int) 100 => 'Government',
			(int) 101 => 'Government',
			(int) 102 => 'Learned Departmental Representative',
			(int) 103 => 'Departmental Representative',
			(int) 104 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 105 => 'the Government of India',
			(int) 106 => 'Government',
			(int) 107 => 'the Government of India',
			(int) 108 => 'the Government of India',
			(int) 109 => 'Government',
			(int) 110 => 'the Government of India',
			(int) 111 => 'The Commissioner (Appeals',
			(int) 112 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
			(int) 113 => 'Administrative',
			(int) 114 => 'CIT',
			(int) 115 => 'Asstt',
			(int) 116 => 'CIT',
			(int) 117 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 118 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 119 => 'the Government of India',
			(int) 120 => 'the Government of India',
			(int) 121 => 'the Government of India',
			(int) 122 => 'Government',
			(int) 123 => 'Air India Limited',
			(int) 124 => 'the Government of India',
			(int) 125 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 126 => 'ITO',
			(int) 127 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 128 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 129 => 'Pithawala v. ITO',
			(int) 130 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1961',
			(int) 1 => '1990-91',
			(int) 2 => 'S.O. 143(E',
			(int) 3 => 'previous year',
			(int) 4 => '63 82',
			(int) 5 => 'two years',
			(int) 6 => 'the assessment year 1997-98',
			(int) 7 => 'daily',
			(int) 8 => '78',
			(int) 9 => '1992',
			(int) 10 => '5876',
			(int) 11 => 'previous year',
			(int) 12 => '75 per day',
			(int) 13 => '30-5-2003',
			(int) 14 => 'the assessment year 1994-95',
			(int) 15 => '1989',
			(int) 16 => 'years 1995-96',
			(int) 17 => '1996-97',
			(int) 18 => '1992',
			(int) 19 => 'the year',
			(int) 20 => 'previous year',
			(int) 21 => '1993-94',
			(int) 22 => 'previous year',
			(int) 23 => '1,000 per month',
			(int) 24 => 'June',
			(int) 25 => 'the rest of',
			(int) 26 => 'nine months',
			(int) 27 => 'the assessment year 1993-94',
			(int) 28 => 'the assessment year 1997-98',
			(int) 29 => '11(3)/96/2001-02',
			(int) 30 => '1107',
			(int) 31 => 'S.O. 143(E',
			(int) 32 => 'a previous year',
			(int) 33 => 'daily',
			(int) 34 => 'daily',
			(int) 35 => 'daily',
			(int) 36 => 'daily',
			(int) 37 => 'daily',
			(int) 38 => 'Rule 2BB(1)(a',
			(int) 39 => '1,300 per month',
			(int) 40 => 'S.O. 143(E',
			(int) 41 => '180 days',
			(int) 42 => '8 days',
			(int) 43 => '2 1 st April, 2006',
			(int) 44 => '1005',
			(int) 45 => '1922',
			(int) 46 => '1955',
			(int) 47 => 'the assessment year 1955-56',
			(int) 48 => '1922',
			(int) 49 => '1922',
			(int) 50 => '1961',
			(int) 51 => 'daily',
			(int) 52 => 'daily',
			(int) 53 => 'daily',
			(int) 54 => 'daily',
			(int) 55 => 'daily',
			(int) 56 => 'daily',
			(int) 57 => 'daily',
			(int) 58 => 'a particular day',
			(int) 59 => 'daily',
			(int) 60 => 'daily',
			(int) 61 => 'daily',
			(int) 62 => 'a particular day',
			(int) 63 => 'daily',
			(int) 64 => '600 per day',
			(int) 65 => 'daily',
			(int) 66 => 'daily',
			(int) 67 => 'daily',
			(int) 68 => 'a particular day',
			(int) 69 => 'daily',
			(int) 70 => 'daily',
			(int) 71 => 'a day',
			(int) 72 => 'less than one day',
			(int) 73 => 'a particular day',
			(int) 74 => 'daily',
			(int) 75 => '600 per day',
			(int) 76 => 'less than one day',
			(int) 77 => 'two years',
			(int) 78 => '2003',
			(int) 79 => '2003',
			(int) 80 => '79'
		),
		'MONEY' => array(
			(int) 0 => '50 per cent',
			(int) 1 => '50 per cent',
			(int) 2 => '40',
			(int) 3 => '50 per cent',
			(int) 4 => '50 per cent',
			(int) 5 => '50 per cent',
			(int) 6 => '50 per cent',
			(int) 7 => '60 per cent',
			(int) 8 => '50 per cent',
			(int) 9 => '60 per cent',
			(int) 10 => '60 per cent',
			(int) 11 => '70 per cent',
			(int) 12 => '50 per cent',
			(int) 13 => '50 per cent',
			(int) 14 => '1922 Act',
			(int) 15 => '1922 Act and 1961 Act',
			(int) 16 => '$ 75AustriaUS $',
			(int) 17 => '$ 51CanadaUS $',
			(int) 18 => '54ChainaUS',
			(int) 19 => '75Hong',
			(int) 20 => '$ 75EthiopiaUS $',
			(int) 21 => '50IndonesiaUS',
			(int) 22 => '75KenyaUS',
			(int) 23 => '$ 50KoreaUS $',
			(int) 24 => '70KuwaitUS',
			(int) 25 => '75These',
			(int) 26 => '10 per cent',
			(int) 27 => '75',
			(int) 28 => '75',
			(int) 29 => 'between US $ 50 to US $ 75 per day',
			(int) 30 => 'minus 10 per cent',
			(int) 31 => '50 per cent',
			(int) 32 => '70 per cent'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '50,000',
			(int) 1 => '21',
			(int) 2 => '21',
			(int) 3 => '21',
			(int) 4 => 'one',
			(int) 5 => '12-3-2003',
			(int) 6 => '234(1',
			(int) 7 => '234A(3',
			(int) 8 => '50,000',
			(int) 9 => '24-8-2001',
			(int) 10 => '2',
			(int) 11 => '30-6-1997',
			(int) 12 => '3,82,184',
			(int) 13 => '3,82,184',
			(int) 14 => '3,82,184',
			(int) 15 => '62',
			(int) 16 => '144(E',
			(int) 17 => '21',
			(int) 18 => '1',
			(int) 19 => '3,000',
			(int) 20 => '30,000',
			(int) 21 => '36,000',
			(int) 22 => '3,000',
			(int) 23 => '32,97,850',
			(int) 24 => '3,000',
			(int) 25 => '2BB',
			(int) 26 => '50,000',
			(int) 27 => '50,000',
			(int) 28 => '600',
			(int) 29 => 'One',
			(int) 30 => '2',
			(int) 31 => '21',
			(int) 32 => '50,000....6',
			(int) 33 => '24',
			(int) 34 => '50,000',
			(int) 35 => '14-3-2002',
			(int) 36 => '50,000',
			(int) 37 => '16',
			(int) 38 => '2001]249ITR219(SC',
			(int) 39 => 'one',
			(int) 40 => '2004]266ITR99(SC',
			(int) 41 => '2000]245ITR492(Delhi',
			(int) 42 => 'one',
			(int) 43 => '21',
			(int) 44 => '1',
			(int) 45 => '30,000',
			(int) 46 => '3,000',
			(int) 47 => '36,000',
			(int) 48 => '30,000',
			(int) 49 => '3,000',
			(int) 50 => '1,000',
			(int) 51 => '3 plus Rs',
			(int) 52 => '3,000',
			(int) 53 => '9',
			(int) 54 => '30,000',
			(int) 55 => '144(E',
			(int) 56 => '21',
			(int) 57 => '1',
			(int) 58 => '1',
			(int) 59 => '144(E',
			(int) 60 => '22-8-2001',
			(int) 61 => '19-12-2001',
			(int) 62 => '28',
			(int) 63 => '5',
			(int) 64 => '30-3-1990',
			(int) 65 => '10',
			(int) 66 => '14',
			(int) 67 => '2',
			(int) 68 => '2BB',
			(int) 69 => '1',
			(int) 70 => '14',
			(int) 71 => 'one',
			(int) 72 => '3,000',
			(int) 73 => 'one',
			(int) 74 => '3,000',
			(int) 75 => '2BB(1)(b)-of',
			(int) 76 => '3',
			(int) 77 => 'one',
			(int) 78 => '2BB(2)(2',
			(int) 79 => 'two',
			(int) 80 => 'one',
			(int) 81 => '2BB(1)(a',
			(int) 82 => '50,000',
			(int) 83 => '50,000',
			(int) 84 => '50,000',
			(int) 85 => 'one',
			(int) 86 => '101',
			(int) 87 => '6',
			(int) 88 => '1-4-1955',
			(int) 89 => '1948]16ITR260(Bom',
			(int) 90 => '1968]67ITR95(SC',
			(int) 91 => '1-4-1955',
			(int) 92 => '1',
			(int) 93 => '28-3-1995',
			(int) 94 => 'five',
			(int) 95 => '600',
			(int) 96 => '600',
			(int) 97 => 'two',
			(int) 98 => '600',
			(int) 99 => '50,000',
			(int) 100 => '144(E',
			(int) 101 => '4',
			(int) 102 => '1,000',
			(int) 103 => '144(E',
			(int) 104 => '600',
			(int) 105 => '600',
			(int) 106 => '420',
			(int) 107 => '4 to 23',
			(int) 108 => '129',
			(int) 109 => '129'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Mumbai',
			(int) 1 => 'Mumbai',
			(int) 2 => 'Delhi',
			(int) 3 => 'Mumbai',
			(int) 4 => 'assessee',
			(int) 5 => 'India',
			(int) 6 => 'India',
			(int) 7 => 'India',
			(int) 8 => 'US',
			(int) 9 => 'India',
			(int) 10 => 'India',
			(int) 11 => 'New Delhi',
			(int) 12 => 'India',
			(int) 13 => 'India',
			(int) 14 => 'India',
			(int) 15 => 'India',
			(int) 16 => 'XXVII',
			(int) 17 => 'Mumbai',
			(int) 18 => 'Mumbai',
			(int) 19 => 'India',
			(int) 20 => 'India',
			(int) 21 => 'India',
			(int) 22 => 'India',
			(int) 23 => 'India',
			(int) 24 => 'Mumbai',
			(int) 25 => 'London',
			(int) 26 => 'Mumbai',
			(int) 27 => 'India',
			(int) 28 => 'States',
			(int) 29 => 'Mumbai',
			(int) 30 => 'New Delhi',
			(int) 31 => 'New Delhi',
			(int) 32 => 'New Delhi',
			(int) 33 => 'New Delhi',
			(int) 34 => 'New Delhi',
			(int) 35 => 'New Delhi',
			(int) 36 => 'New Delhi',
			(int) 37 => 'India',
			(int) 38 => 'US',
			(int) 39 => 'US',
			(int) 40 => 'India',
			(int) 41 => 'India',
			(int) 42 => 'India',
			(int) 43 => 'India',
			(int) 44 => 'India',
			(int) 45 => 'India',
			(int) 46 => 'India',
			(int) 47 => 'India',
			(int) 48 => 'India',
			(int) 49 => 'India'
		),
		'EVENT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'SO 487(E',
			(int) 1 => 'US Dollars',
			(int) 2 => 'SO 487(E',
			(int) 3 => 'SO 487(E',
			(int) 4 => 'Edition - Page 1.130It'
		),
		'LOC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Harminder Singhs',
			(int) 1 => 'Nicobar Island',
			(int) 2 => 'Nicobar Island'
		),
		'QUANTITY' => array(
			(int) 0 => '20-2-2002'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'ITAT',
			(int) 1 => 'Indian',
			(int) 2 => 'allowance4.Any',
			(int) 3 => 'Indian'
		),
		'TIME' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'overnight',
			(int) 1 => 'overnight',
			(int) 2 => 'hourly',
			(int) 3 => 'more than 12 hours',
			(int) 4 => '6 hours',
			(int) 5 => 'less than 12 hours',
			(int) 6 => '6 hours'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'first'
		),
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Madanlal Mohanlal Narang'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '367002',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'It Appeal No. 6023 (Mum.) of 2003 C.O. No. 135 (Mum.) of 2006 ,  A.Y. 1990-91 ,  23 June 2006',
			'appellant' => 'ito, Ward 27(1)(3), Mumbai',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'ito, Ward 27(1)(3), Mumbai Vs. Capt. H.R. Vinayak',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 34: [D.K. Deshmukh, S.J. Vazifdar & J.P. Devadhar, JJ] Court fee on Petition under Section 34 of the Act  Bombay Court Fees Act (36 of 1959), Schedule I, Article 3, Schedule II, Article 1(f)(iii)  Held, According to Article 3 of Schedule I, on any plaint, application or petition or memorandum of appeal for setting aside or modifying an award, same court fee is payable as is payable on a plaint or memorandum of appeal under Article 1. Thus, when an award is challenged by a plaint, application, petition or memorandum of appeal, court fee is payable on ad valorem basis. But from this requirement of payment of court fee on ad valorem basis, Article 3 excludes an application or petition or memorandum of appeal filed in civil or revenue Court challenging any award made under the Arbitration Act, 1940.Thus, the provisions of Article 3 of Schedule 1 do not apply when an application is filed or appeal is filed challenging an award made under the Arbitration Act, 1940. Thus the provisions of Article 3 of Schedule I do not apply when an application is filed challenging an award made under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The question, therefore, that arises for consideration is whether reference to the provisions of 1940 Act found in Article 3 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act can be said to include reference to the 1996 Act. Perusal of the provisions of Section 8 of General Clauses Act shows that where by a Central enactment any provision of a former enactment is repealed and re-enacted with or without modification then reference in any other enactment to the provisions so repealed shall, unless a different intention appears, be construed as references to the provisions so re-enacted.  In the present case, it is common ground that the former enactment is the 1940 Act, the new enactment is the 1996 Act and any other enactment is the Bombay Court fees Act, the only provision of the 1940 Act referred to in Article 3 of Schedule 1 of the Bombay Court Fees Act is the provisions of Section 33 of the 1940Act and  bare comparison of that provision with the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the 1996 Act shows that the provision of Section 33 of 1940 Act is repealed and re-enacted in sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the 1996 Act with slight modification. Therefore, reference to the provisions of Section 33 of the 1940 Act in Article 3 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Court Fees Act has to be construed, in view of the provisions of Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, as reference to the provisions of Section 34 of the 1996 Act. So far as an appeal filed under Section 37 of the 1996 Act is concerned, perusal of Section 37 shows that an appeal is provided to the appellate Court against an order setting aside an arbitral award or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34. Thus, as the provisions of Article 3 of Schedule-I do not apply to an application or petition filed under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, they will also not apply to the memorandum of appeal filed to set aside or modify an award made by the Arbitrator under the 1996 Act. In other words nothing contained in Article 3 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Court Fees Act applies to an application, petition or memorandum of appeal to set aside or modify any Award made under the 1996 Act as it does not apply to an application or petition or memorandum of appeal to set aside or modify an Award made under the Arbitration Act, 1940. Perusal of the provisions of Section 8 of the General Clauses Act shows that references in any other enactment to a provision in a former enactment is to be construed as reference to re-enacted provision in the new enactment unless a different intention appears. The different intention may appear either in the new enactment or in the other enactment. Nothing was pointed out either in the 1996 Act or in the Bombay Court Fees Act which can be construed as a different intention or which will show that it was not the intention of the Maharashtra legislature to exclude an application or petition or memorandum of appeal filed in Court to set aside or modify an award made under the 1996 Act, from the provisions of Article 3 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Court Fees Act. It appears that the intention behind excluding an application made, challenging the Award made under the 1940 Act, from requirement of payment of ad valorem Court fee which is required to be paid if the same litigant filed a suit on the same subject matter, was to encourage a litigant to go for arbitration instead of filing a suit. Nothing has been pointed out to show that ther4e is any change in that legislative policy. On the contrary, from the preamble of the 1996 Act it is clear that the policy of the legislature is to encourage people to adopt the mode of arbitration for resolving disputes. Article 3 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Court Fees Act does not apply to a petition,  application or memorandum of appeal filed for challenging an Award made under the 1996 Act, and Court fee on a petition filed under Section 34 of the 1996 Act challenging an Award in High Court is payable according to Article 1(f)(iii) of Schedule II. 

Section 37: [D.K. Deshmukh, S.J. Vazifdar & J.P. Devadhar, JJ] Court fee on Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Held, Court fee is payable according to Article 13 of Schedule II of the Bombay Court Fees Act.

Schedule I, Article 3 & Schedule II, Article 1(f)(iii): [D.K. Deshmukh, S.J. Vazifdar & J.P. Devadhar, JJ] Court fee on Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Held, When a Petition under Section 34 is to be filed before a Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction which is not a High Court, the question arises which Article of either First Schedule or Second Schedule would apply. In so far as the challenge to an Award made under the 1940 Act is concerned, an application under Section 33 of that Act could be made to a Civil Court and therefore, payment of Court fee was governed by Article 1(a) of Schedule II. This was so because the application was to be presented to the Court of Civil Judge which was not a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. But now because of change of definition of term Court in the 1996 Act, a petition has to be presented, challenging an Award made under the 1996 Act in terms of the provisions of Section 34 thereof, before the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. No entry either in the first Schedule or in the Second Schedule was pointed out which applies to an application or petition to be made before the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, and therefore, when a litigant wants to file petition before a Principal Civil Court having original jurisdiction which is not High Court, challenging an Award made under the 1996 Act, no court fee under Bombay Court Fees Act is payable because of absence of a general or specific provision. Therefore, it can be said that no Court  fee under the Bombay Court Fees Act is payable when a petition under Section 34 challenging an Award is filed before any Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction which is not High Court. 

Schedule II, Article 13: [D.K. Deshmukh, S.J. Vazifdar & J.P. Devadhar, JJ] Court fee on Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Held, Court fee is payable according to Article 13 of Schedule II of the Bombay Court Fees Act. -  In the said case, we have, inter alia, observed as follows :2. The factual matrix giving rise to this litigation before us is like this. None of the parties is satisfied with this order. 9. There are, however, other reasons for rejecting revenues grievance on merits as well. Harminder Singh (supra) is now good in law, particularly after Tribunals subsequent order in the case of Capt. It is interesting to note that the Tribunal in Capt. 17. As for the nature of allowance which are exempt under section 10(14)(ii), in terms of plain words of the statutory provisions under that section, the following conditions are required to be satisfied :the allowance should be granted to meet personal expenses of the assessee or to compensate him for the increased cost of living; Once the above conditions, as laid down under the statute are satisfied, the exemption is available in respect of the allowance granted to an assessee working in any transport system and to meet personal expenses of such assessee during the course of running of such transport from one place to another; To that extent, the legal position, on the facts of the case before us and in the light of developments which have been taken note of hereinabove, is that the exemption under section 10(14)(1) is also available for allowances granted to the assessee in respect of tours of the assessee to domestic destinations as well, and that section 10(14)(ii) cannot be said to have any application in respect of such allowances. CIT (101 TTJ 1005), the Tribunal, inter ali,4 observed as follows :6. We find that the basic reason of declining the exemption claimed by the assessee is that the authorities below are not satisfied about evidence of the assessee having actually spent the amount allowance for the purposes for which the same were granted. 8. The above circular was undoubtedly issued under the Income Tax Act, 1922 but then all the circulars issued under section 1922 Act, do not cease to hold good in law. In other words, to the extent the legal provisions of 1922 Act and 1961 Act are in pari materia, circulars and instructions issued under the 1922 Act will also hold good. The circular in view of the provisions of section 297(2)(k) it still holds good and continued to be in force. , to the extent to which such expenses are actually incurred being absolutely identical in both the Acts, the provisions of the above circular, in our humble understanding, apply under the 1961 Act as well. 144(E), or the corresponding rule, but then, as revenue itself has accepted applicability of section 10(14)(1) in respect of allowances drawn for travelling abroad in connection with the flying duties, there cannot be any good reason to decline exemption under section 10(14)(1) in respect of allowances paid for travelling within India. Once exemption under section 10(14)(1) is available in respect of these allowances, the same allowances cannot be subject-matter of exemption under section 10(14)(ii) as well. In these circumstances, and particularly bearing in mind the fact that revenue itself has now accepted that exemption under section 10(14)(1) is to be given for the allowances in connection with visits abroad, are of the view that the exemption of these allowances is to be granted under section 10(14)(i) for travelling within India as well. We, therefore, confirm the action of the Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard as well, and decline to interfere on this count as well.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '  Ajay, <i>for the Assessee</i> , 
 Rajnish Agarwal, <i>for the Revenue</i>.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-06-23',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => '',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">G.C. Gupta, J.M.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The short issue requiring our adjudication in this case is whether or not the allowances received by the assessee - who is a commercial pilot working for Indian Airlines Ltd. while he is away from his normal place of duty in connection with the flying duties, are exempt under section 10(14)(i) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, and if these are held to be exempt, to what extent exemption under section 10(14)(1) can be granted in the absence of actual evidence of expenditure incurred by the assessee.<p style="text-align: justify;">2. The assessment year involved in this appeal is 1990-91 and the assessment order in question is framed under section 144 read with section 147(a) of the Act.<p style="text-align: justify;">3. Grounds of appeal as taken by the revenue are as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in directing the assessing officer to allow exemption of allowances received on duty abroad under section 10(14)(ii) to the extent of 50 per cent of the allowances or Rs. 50,000 whichever is less, because of the following reasons :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) The assessee being an Indian Airlines on board crew, it cannot be said that the journey performed on board on trips abroad is same as journey performed on tour, so as to come within the ambit of clause (b) of Notification No. S.0.143(E), dated 21-2-1989.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Clause (b) of Notification No. S.O. 143(E), dated 21-2-1989 is not applicable to the facts of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Without prejudice to (i) and (ii) above, the assessee has produced no evidence, whatsoever either before the assessing officer or before the Commissioner (Appeals) to prove that the assessee, in fact had performed journey to foreign stations during the relevant previous year and incurred any expenditure on these hypothetical journey abroad.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The specific provision contained in clause (4) of Notification No. S.0.143(E), dated 21-2-1989 regarding any allowance granted to an employee working in any transport system to meet his personal expenditure during his duty performed in the course of running such transport from one place to another place, is applicable to the facts of this case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in setting aside the issue of charging interest under section 234 relying on the decision of Honble ITAT, Mumbai, in the case of Ms. Priti Pithawala v. ITO in ITA No. 63 82 /Mum. /2002, dated 12-3-2003 and has further erred in directing the assessing officer to calculate the interest under section 234A only for a limited period of two years for the following reasons :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) In the present case, no return of income was filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) In the present case, provisions of section 234(1)(b) is applicable and hence interest under section 234A is chargeable for the period commencing from the date immediately following the due date and ending with the date of completion of the assessment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this case, interest under section 234A has been correctly charged from the due date as per provisions of sections 234(1) and 234A(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.'<p style="text-align: justify;">4. The grounds of cross objection, as set out in the memorandum of cross objection filed by the assessee, are as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in directing the assessing officer to allow deduction under section 10(14)(i) of 50 per cent in respect of allowances received by the respondent while on international duty subject to maximum of Rs. 50,000 by ignoring the fact that the entire allowances received are exempt under section 10(14)(i) read with rules and notifications thereon.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in restricting the deduction as above especially in the light of the decision of Honble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Capt. V.K. Verma (ITA No. 5875/Delhi/96) in which the Honble Members in their order dated 24-8-2001 stated that the applicability of provisions of section 10(14)(i) was not examined by the Honble Members of ITAT, Delhi while deciding the case of Capt. Harminder Singh.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in not appreciating the fact that once the Honble ITAT, Mumbai has given directions to examine the deduction of various allowances under section 10(14)(i) in the case of Capt. V.K. Verma and the department has accordingly allowed part of the allowance as deduction under section 10(14)(i) read with rules and notifications thereon, there was no room for restricting the deduction which should be allowed in full.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in restricting the deduction as above without appreciating the fact that even under the amended provisions the exemption is allowable to the extent the same were used for the purpose for which the same were granted and the amendment did not vest the assessing officer powers to call for details of factual expenditure.'<p style="text-align: justify;">5. A materially identical issue came up for consideration before a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Capt. K.P. Singh, and vice versa. In the said case, the Tribunal has, inter alia, has held that in the light of the subsequent judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Capt. V.K. Verma v. Asstt. CIT and vice versa. In the said case, we have, inter alia, observed as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'2. The factual matrix giving rise to this litigation before us is like this. The assessee before us is a commercial pilot working for Air India Limited. On 30-6-1997, the assessee filed his income-tax return for the assessment year 1997-98 declaring income of Rs. 29,45,670. This return was processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Act, and the income so returned by the assessee was duly accepted. Subsequently, however, the assessing officer noticed that the assessee had claimed a deduction of Rs. 3,82,184 under section 10(14) and the same was not considered by the employer at the time of deducting tax at source. In other words, this claim of deduction of Rs. 3,82,184 was over and above the exemption granted by the employer, while estimating income chargeable to tax, for the purpose of computing tax deduction at source. It was in this backdrop that the case of the assessee was reopened and the assessee was called upon to substantiate the claim of exemption of Rs. 3,82,184. During the course of the ensuing assessment proceedings, the assessing officer took note of assessees contention that the employer only provides for hotel and breakfast, during assessees stay abroad, and rest of the expenses are to be borne out of the allowances granted by the employer. It was also noted that several allowances have been merged into a consolidated flying allowance, and thus, a portion of the allowance so paid everyday represents daily allowance for meals and other expenses incurred by the assessee on account of absence from normal place of duty. The Assessing Officer was, however, of the view that in the light of the Tribunals judgment in the case of Capt. Harminder Singh v. Income-tax Officer (62 ITD 78 Delhi) and in the light of notification numbers SO 144(E), dated 21-2-1989 and SO 487(E), dated 1-7-1992, exemption has to be allowed under section 10(14)(ii) and up to the extent of Rs. 3,000 per month. Accordingly, the assessing officer restricted the exemption, to the extent of Rs. 30,000, though it should have been, even as per this line of reasoning, Rs. 36,000 computed by taking Rs. 3,000 per month under section 10(14)(ii). Exemption was declined on the balance amount, and the income was thus assessed at Rs. 32,97,850. Aggrieved by the stand so taken by the assessing officer, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) took the view that so far as the allowances in respect of flights in India is concerned, the assessing officer was in deed justified in holding that the exemption is to be granted under section 10(14)(ii) and is to restricted to Rs. 3,000 per month. However, as regards the exemption in respect of the same allowances, so far as international flights are concerned, the Commissioner (Appeals) was of the view that the provisions of section 10(14)(i) will come into play. In coming to this conclusion, the Commissioner (Appeals) was also guided by observations made by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of Capt. V.K. Verma v. ITO and vice versa (ITA No. 5876/Delhi/96 and ITA No. 1493/Delhi/97). The Commissioner (Appeals) thereafter proceeded to observe as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Since section 140(14)(ii) read with rule 2BB covers only the situation where the allowances are received in India, therefore, the allowances received for flights operated outside India are to be brought with the scope of section 10(14)(1) of the Income-Tax Act. The said section has not prescribed any limit and was further limited the deduction to the extent such allowances are actually incurred for the purpose. Therefore, I hold that the appellant is entitled to relief under section 10(14)(i) of the Income-Tax Act and the expenses claimed by the appellant should have been incurred abroad and will have to be allowed under section 10(14)(i) of the Income-Tax Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Having so upheld the contention of the assessee in principle, however, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the assessee has not been able to furnish the copies of bills and vouchers for the actual expenses incurred abroad on lunch, dinner and other daily expenses. As to assessees contention that it was not possible to keep meticulous record of all such expenditure, the Commissioner (Appeals) added that 'I am unable to agree with the contention of the appellant for the simple reason that the expenditure has been claimed by the appellant on actual basis and therefore it is the duty of the appellant to prove the expenditure by leading necessary evidence'. A copy of dinner bill showing expenditure of US $ 40 on a single dinner was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that it did not pertain to the relevant previous year. The Commissioner (Appeals) then concluded that in the absence of any other evidence of actual expenditure, the assessee should be entitled deduction to the extent of 50 per cent of allowances received, or Rs. 50,000 whichever is less. In the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), thus, it has been held that the allowances are exempt under section 10(14)(1) of the Act, but, in the absence of evidence of actual expenditure, the CIT(A) has restricted the exemption to 50 per cent of the allowances granted to the assessee, or Rs. 50,000 - whichever is less. None of the parties is satisfied with this order. Revenue is aggrieved of CIT(A)s 'Allowing the allowances for flights received for flights abroad, operated outside India, under section 10(14)(i) on estimate basis for want of proof of expenses actually incurred which was not at all considered at the time of original assessment by the assessing officer'. Assessees grievance, on the other hand, is that his claim for exemption should be allowed in entirety which he has claimed at the rate of US Dollars 75 per day when he goes on duties outside India, and at the rate of Rs. 600 per day when he is outside his base in India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We have heard the rival contentions, perused material on record any duly considered factual matrix of the case as also the applicable legal position.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. One of the documents sighted before us, during the course of this hearing, was a revision order under section 264 dated 30-5-2003 in the case of Capt. U.A. Joglekar, passed by the very Commissioner of Income-Tax who has signed the authorisation memo dated 2-7-2003 for filing of this appeal before us. In this revision order, the Commissioner has, inter alia, observed as follows :.The assessee has, in this case, moved a petition under section 264 for the assessment year 1994-95 with regard to claim of exemption under section 10(14)(1) of the Income-tax Act. It was contended that this claim has not been allowed by the assessing officer in the course of the assessment. The assessees claim relates to the exemption under section 10(14)(i) read with notification made therein in respect of various allowances received while operating international flights. These allowances are received in local currency at the foreign station and, therefore, covered by the provisions of section 10(14)(1) and notification issued thereunder. Clause (b) of relevant Notification No. SO 143(E), dated 21-2-1989 reads as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'any allowance, whether granted on tour or for the period of journey in connection with transfer, to meet the ordinary daily charges incurred by an employee on account of absence from its normal place of duty'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">As per this notification, while deliberating on this issue, concurring with the view of my predecessor in a similar order... in the case of Ms. Shailaja Ramamurthy, I am of the opinion that the allowances paid outside the country, to the employees of Indian Airlines are within the scope of section 10(14)(1) and accordingly, in the absence of the evidence, 50 per cent of the expenditure so incurred should be allowed as deduction, limited to Rs. 50,000....<p style="text-align: justify;">6. The revision order dated 24-5-2002 passed by his predecessor, which has been referred to and concurred with in this order, is also relevant in this context. The said order reads as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The assessee has, in this case, moved a petition under section 264 for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 with regard to claim of exemption under section 10(14)(1) of the Income-Tax Act. It was contended that this claim has not been allowed by the assessing officer in the course of assessments. A reference in this connection was made by the authorised representative earlier on seeking clarification pertaining to the claim under section 10(14)(1). The Commissioner (Appeals) while deliberating on this issue, had also opined that the allowances paid outside the country to the employees of Indian Airlines are within scope of section 10(14)(i). Accordingly, an instruction of advisory nature was issued to the assessing officers stating that in the absence of evidence, 50 per cent of the expenditure so incurred should be allowed limited to Rs. 50,000. It would be significant to state that assessing officers in New Delhi have allowed the claim by restricting it to 60 per cent of the foreign allowance. Relevant portion of my instruction dated 14-3-2002 is cited below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I am of the opinion that in the cases pertaining to this charge, we may allow expenditure of 50 per cent which appears to be reasonable. This will only be with regard to the allowance paid on food, beverage, telephone and transportation. The claim of exemption will not be applicable for any other allowances which cannot be construed as f falling within the ambit of section 10(14)(i) as these are not paid to meet ordinary daily charges incurred by the employee on account of absence from his normal place of duty. This expenditure should, however, be limited to Rs. 50,000 only.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Further the assessing officers should substitute the allowance incorporated in the assessment order with the allowances indicated by Indian Airlines authorities, if required, and should also substitute salary as per Form No. 16 as against the estimated salary.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Accordingly, the assessing officer is directed to allow the assessees claim under section 10(14)(1) as per the above instruction.<p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is thus clear that the revenue itself has taken a stand that so far as international flights are concerned, the provisions of exemption under section 10(14)(i) are applicable, and that the assessee-pilot is entitled to exemption under section 10(14)(i) in respect of the same. The very Commissioner who challenges the impugned order, passed by the CIT(A) holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 10(14)(1) in respect of allowances received for international flights, has himself allowed the same exemption. It is difficult to reconcile between Commissioners giving the relief of exemption under section 10(14)(i), by exercising his revision powers under section 264, and the same Commissioners authorising filing of an appeal against an Appellate Commissioner granting absolutely identical relief by way of an appellate order.<p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the case of Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal : [2001]249ITR219(SC) , Honble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider whether it is open to revenue to accept a judgment in the case of one assessee, and appeal, against the identical judgment in the case of another. Their Lordships held that such a differential treatment on the same set of facts was not permissible in law, and observed that, 'It is not open to revenue to accept the judgment in the case of the assessee in that case and challenge its correctness in the case of another assessee, without just cause.' The same view was reiterated by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Berger Paints India Limited v. CIT : [2004]266ITR99(SC) , and followed by the Honble Delhi High Court in the cases of CWT v. RKKR Industries Private Limited 198 CTR 567 and CIT v. Neo Poly Pack Pvt. Ltd. : [2000]245ITR492(Delhi) . When it is not possible for the revenue to challenge an order of the appellate authority in one case and when it has accepted identical order of the appellate authority in another case, it cannot at all be open to the revenue to challenge the order of the appellate authority on an issue on which relief has been given by Commissioner himself, in other cases, by way of exercising revision jurisdiction in other cases. For this reason alone, the grievance raised by the revenue is not maintainable in law and deserves to be rejected in limine.<p style="text-align: justify;">9. There are, however, other reasons for rejecting revenues grievance on merits as well.<p style="text-align: justify;">10. It is important to appreciate that the sole and immediate reason of rejecting assessees claim for exemption under section 10(14)(1) is revenues reliance on applicability of section 10(14)(ii) read with Notification Nos. SO 144(E), dated 21-2-1989 and SO 487(E), dated 1-7-1992, as also Tribunals judgment in the case of Capt. Harminder Singh (supra). The fact that assessing officer has, without any application of mind, blindly followed Tribunals judgment in the case of Capt. Harminder Singh (supra), is also evident from assessing officers allowing exemption under section 10(14)(ii) only to the extent of Rs. 30,000 for the year, whereas, even as per applicable limit for the relevant previous year, that is at the rate of Rs. 3,000 the correct figure should have been Rs. 36,000. The apparent reason is that in Capt. Harminder Singhs case (supra), Tribunal had allowed exemption to the extent of Rs. 30,000 but then the assessment year involved in that case was 1993-94, and for the relevant previous year, the applicable limit was Rs. 1,000 per month till June, and for the rest of nine months the applicable limit was enhanced to Rs. 3,000 per month. That is how, i.e. Rs. 1,000 multiplied with 3 plus Rs. 3,000 multiplied with 9, the figure of Rs. 30,000 applied for the assessment year 1993-94. Yet, the Assessing Officer has adopted the same for the assessment year 1997-98 also. As for the reliance on notification numbers SO 144(E), dated 21-2-1989 and SO 487(E), dated 1-7-1992, these notifications ceased to be relevant after amendment of section 10(14) with effect from 1-7-1995. These things, as we pointed out, only show-how thoughtlessly the impugned assessment order is passed. It is also important to bear in mind the fact that in Capt. Harminder Singhs case (supra), the assessee was working on domestic sectors and it was for this reason that the Tribunal came to the conclusion that old notification SO 144(E), as it was then in force, applied. This notification admittedly applies to 'whole of India' only, and not beyond that. The exemption under section 10(14)(ii) is thus, even as per the revenue, available only in India and not outside India. In the present case, the exemption under section 10(14)(1) has been declined only on the ground that exemption under section 10(14)(ii) is available. Therefore, even going by the logic of the assessing officer, exemption under section 10(14)(i) cannot be declined because, assessee, while flying on international sectors, cannot be allowed exemption under section 10(14)(ii). This stand, even after taking note of Tribunals decision in the case of Capt. Harminder Singh (supra), has not only been approved by another Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Capt. V.K. Verma (supra) but has also been followed by the Commissioner in exercise of his revision jurisdiction by issuing orders under section 264 and in exercise of his supervisory jurisdiction by issuing administrative instructions. The very foundation on revenues arguments in support of non-applicability of section 10(14)(i) is thus devoid of any legally sustainable basis.<p style="text-align: justify;">11. The assessee, though working for an international carrier, operates on the domestic flights. The question then arises whether exemption under section 10(14)(i) is available in respect of the same allowances when the assessee has to stay in a place, outside his place of posting, in India. This takes us to an even more fundamental question and that is to what extent applicability of exemption under section 10(14)(ii) as was upheld by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Capt. Harminder Singh (supra) is now good in law, particularly after Tribunals subsequent order in the case of Capt. V.K. Verma (supra) and in the light of the stand being taken by the assessing officers and the Administrative Commissioners in the cases of the pilots. It is interesting to note that the Tribunal in Capt. V.K. Vermas case (supra), whose employer was the same as of Capt. Harminder Singh, and the revenue authorities have consistently held that to the extent the allowances are not covered by section 10(14)(ii), the same are to be treated as subject-matter of exemption under section 10(14)(i). In Capt. Vermas case (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, vide order dated 22-8-2001, observed that :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On careful perusal of the record, we find force in the contentions of the assessee that the facts of the impugned case are not identical to that of Harminder Singhs case (supra). As such the principle laid down in that case is not strictly applicable to the instant case. It is also obvious from Tribunals order in Harminder Singhs case that Tribunal did not have occasion to examine the issue of exemption of allowance under section 10(14)(i) of the Act, if the assessee is on flying duty abroad. Though the assessee has emphatically argued that its claims are covered under section 10(14)(i), we are of the view that since lower authorities have not applied their mind to this aspect, this matter should go back to the assessing officer for its reexamination in the light of assessees contentions and various notifications of the Board and relevant provisions of law. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the matter to the file of the assessing officer for re-examination in the terms indicated above.<p style="text-align: justify;">12. This order has been accepted by the revenue. In fact, when the matter was thus restored to the file of the assessing officer, the assessing officer finalized the assessment on 20-2-2002, by observing, inter alia, as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">As per the directions of the ITAT, the case was taken up for hearing. The counsel of the assessee has filed written submissions in this regard. He has also filed a copy of the order dated 19-12-2001 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) XXVII, Mumbai in the case of Neeta Kulkarni in Appeal No. CIT, XXVII/ITO, Wd 11(3)/96/2001-02. It was contended by the AR that the CIT (Appeals), in the above order, has held that the allowances paid while operating international flights are covered by exemption under section 10(14)(i) read with Notification No. SO 143(E), dated 28-2-1989 subject to verification of expenses actually incurred by the assessee while operating international flights.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The assessees AR has also filed a detailed note stating that Indian Airlines, employer, provides accommodation at foreign stations to the assessee on bread and breakfast basis. These are paid in local currency at foreign stations to meet out other expenditure on meals, refreshments, tea, transportation, telephone and other incidental expenses. It was claimed that these foreign allowances are in the nature of reimbursements and have been spent while performing official duties. The AR has further relied upon instruction No. 1107, dated 5-10-1977 and letter dated 30-3-1990 issued by the CBDT in support of his contention that these allowances are exempt under section 10(14)(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I have considered the submissions of the AR and details filed by him. I have also gone through the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai referred to above. Though the assessee has claimed that the allowances received by him have been spent for the purpose for which it were given, the assessee could not provide any supporting material /vouchers to substantiate his claim in this regard. Keeping in view the nature of expenditure to be incurred at foreign station, facilities provided by the employer and the amount of foreign allowance paid to the assessee I consider it reasonable to take 60 per cent of the foreign allowances as having been actually incurred and allow exemption under section 10(14)(i) read with Notification No. SO 143(E) .......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is thus clear that even as per the revenue authorities, the claim of exemption is allowable under section 10(14)(1) though only to the extent of 60 per cent in respect of allowances granted for the purpose of visits abroad in connection with the flying duties. The nature of allowances is admittedly the same for domestic and international visits, only the quantum of allowance and currency of allowance varies. That is a significant departure from revenues stand that the allowances cannot be said to be in the nature of allowances eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(1) at all. The revenue having taken the stand that the nature of allowances is such that it can be partly exempted under section 10(14)(1) when assessee visits abroad and when the exemption under section 10(14)(ii) is, therefore, unavailable, it cannot be open to revenue to now argue that provisions of section 10(14)(i) cannot be attracted at all in respect of the identical allowances for visiting Indian stations. To that extent, the principle laid down by the Tribunal in Capt. Harminder Singhs case (supra) has been modified by the Tribunal in the subsequent decisions, such as in the case of Capt. V.K. Verma (supra), and even by the revenue authorities in the assessments of other assessees. Once the revenue itself accepts that the nature of allowances is covered by section 10(14)(i) read with Notification No. S.O. 143(E), though in connection with flights abroad, the only surviving reason for rejection of claim under section 10(14)(i) in respect of domestic allowances is specific provision of section 10(14)(ii) governing the exemption in respect of domestic allowances.<p style="text-align: justify;">13. A plain reading of the revision orders passed under section 264 and administrative instructions issued by the Administrative Commission also shows that to the extent exemption under section 10(14)(ii) is not available in respect of the allowances, the field officers have considered the same allowances in respect of 'food, beverage, telephone and transportation', as eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(i). The only reason for rejecting the exemption under section 10(14)(1) thus is availability of exemption under section 10(14)(ii) in respect of those allowances. This surviving reason for rejection of claim of exemption under section 10(14)(1), however, rests on the fallacious assumption that the provisions of section 10(14)(i) and section 10(14)(ii) do not operate in mutually exclusive fields.<p style="text-align: justify;">14. We consider it necessary to reproduce the provisions of section 10(14) which are as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In computing the total income of a previous year of any person, any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not be included :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(14)	**		**		**		**		**</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) any such special allowance or benefit, not being in the nature of a perquisite with the meanings of clause (2) of section 17, specifically granted to meet expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in the performance of duties of an office or employment of profit, as may be prescribed, to the extent to which such expenses are actually incurred for that purpose;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) any such allowance granted to the assessee either to meet his personal expenses at the place where duties of his office or employment of profit are ordinarily performed by him or at the place where he ordinarily resides, or to compensate him for the increased cost of living as may be prescribed and to the extent may be prescribed :<p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that nothing in sub-clause (ii) shall apply to any allowance in the nature of personal allowance granted to him for performing duties of a special nature relating to his office unless such allowance is related to his place of posting or residence.<p style="text-align: justify;">15. We also consider it appropriate to reproduce the part of Rule 2BB under which the allowances paid for going abroad in connection with flying duties are exempted by the revenue and under which the allowances paid for going to other places inside India are exempted by the revenue :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Rule 2BB :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) For the purpose of clause (i) of sub section 14 of section 10, prescribed allowances, by whatever name called, shall be following :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) any allowance, whether granted on tour or for the period of journey in connection with transfer, to meet the ordinary daily charges incurred by an employee on account of absence from normal place of duty;<p style="text-align: justify;">(2) For the purpose of clause (ii) of sub-section (14) of section 10, prescribed allowances, by whatever name called, and the extent thereof, shall be following, namely,<p style="text-align: justify;">(i)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sl.No.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Name of the allowance</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Any allowance granted to an employee working in any transport system, to meet his personal expenditure during his duty performed in the course of running of such transport, from one place to another place, provided such employee is not in receipt of daily allowance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Place at which allowance is exempt </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Extent to which allowance is exempt</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Whole of India upto a</p><p style="text-align: justify;">70% of the allowance maximum of Rs. 3,000 per month<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. An analysis of section 10(14)(1) read with Rule 2BB(1)(b) indicates that essential ingredients of an allowance eligible for exemption under that section are as follow :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">the allowance or benefit should be specifically granted to meet expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in connection with the duties of an office or employment of profit;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">the allowance or benefit should not be in the nature of a perquisite as defined under section 17(2) of the Act;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">the exemption of allowance is restricted to the extent to which such expenses are actually incurred for that purpose;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">the allowance should be to meet ordinary daily charges on account of absence from normal place of duty.<p style="text-align: justify;">17. As for the nature of allowance which are exempt under section 10(14)(ii), in terms of plain words of the statutory provisions under that section, the following conditions are required to be satisfied :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">the allowance should be granted to meet personal expenses of the assessee or to compensate him for the increased cost of living;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">in case the allowance is granted to meet personal expenses of the assessee, the allowance should be to meet his personal expenses at</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) at the place where the duties of office or employment of profit are ordinarily performed; or</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) at the place where the assessee normally resides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Once the above conditions, as laid down under the statute are satisfied, the exemption is available in respect of the allowance granted to an assessee working in any transport system and to meet personal expenses of such assessee during the course of running of such transport from one place to another;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">the assessee should not be in receipt of a daily allowance; and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">the exemption of allowance is to the extent the allowance is prescribed at 70 per cent of the allowance up to a maximum of Rs. 3,000 per month so far as year before us is concerned.<p style="text-align: justify;">18. It is thus clear that so far as eligibility for exemption under section 10(14)(i) read with Rule 2BB(1)(b) is concerned, it has nothing to do with the place which assessee is to visit in the course of duties. The exemption under this section cannot be declined on the ground that the assessee was to visit places outside his normal place of duty in India, and not abroad. Whether an assessee is in India or is outside India, as long as allowance is granted to meet ordinary daily charges on account of absence from normal place of duty, the same is eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(1) read with Rule 2BB(1)(b)-of course subject to actual use condition but that is not relevant in the present context. Therefore, the normal interpretation of this provision, as accepted by the revenue, is that if an employee is posted in Mumbai and he travels to, say, London, the allowance that the assessee is granted to meet his ordinary daily charges, such as say on meals, beverages, refreshments, toiletries etc. on account of his absence from Mumbai, the same is eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(1) read with Rule 2BB(1)(b). The revenue also, therefore, accepts that allowances are specifically granted to meet expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in connection with the duties of an office, and are not in the nature of perquisite under section 17(2) of the Act. because without satisfying these conditions, the exemption under section 10(14)(i) could not have been granted at all in respect of the allowances. However, it is also important to appreciate that rule 2BB(1)(b) does not make a distinction between domestic destinations and foreign destinations. Therefore, once the revenue accepts that the allowances are granted to meet ordinary daily charges on account of absence from normal place of duty when assessee goes on flying duties abroad, it cannot be open to revenue to contend that so far as allowances to visit domestic destinations are concerned, the eligibility of exemption under section 10(14)(i) is not available. The exemption under section 10(14)(i) has, however, been denied apparently on the ground that the exemption under section 10(14)(ii) read with Rule 2BB(2)(iv) is available in respect of such allowances.<p style="text-align: justify;">19. Section 10(14)(ii) read with Rule 2BB(2)(iv), on the other hand, deals with the allowances which are granted to meet (a) increased cost of living; or to meet (b) personal expenses at the place where duties of office are performed or where the assessee ordinarily resides. An allowance can either be for personal expenses or for official expenses; it cannot be for official expenses as also for personal expenses at the same time. Therefore, once it is stand of the revenue that the allowances are granted to 'meet expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in connection with the duties of an office' since exemption under section 10(14)(i) read with Rule 2BB(1)(b) has been granted in respect of such allowances by the assessing officer himself and by the Commissioner, by way of revision orders under section 264, in respect of allowances in connection with flying duties aboard, merely because the places covered by the assessee in some of such visits are inside India, it cannot be said that the allowances are not granted to 'meet expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in connection with the duties of an office'. The purpose of the allowances remains in the same and if destination that the assessee visits makes any difference to the allowances, such difference is only in terms of quantum of allowance and the currency in which it is paid. These factors, by any stretch of logic, cannot have any bearing on the eligibility for exemption under section 10(14)(i). The very basis of denying exemption under section 10(14)(i), therefore, is no longer sustainable in law.<p style="text-align: justify;">20. When the allowances are admittedly granted for wholly, necessarily and exclusively for official purposes, there cannot be any occasion to invoke section 10(14)(ii) the scope of which is confined to expenses to meet increased cost of living or to meet personal expenses at the place where duties of office are performed or where the assessee resides. The expression place where the duties of his office or employment of profit are performed appearing in section 10(14)(ii) of the Act refers to a geographical location, ie. city, State, or the region, where the employee is posted, as is also evident from column 3 of Rule 2BB(2) which refers to geographical locations such as cities, States, altitude of the place where an employee is posted, and sea distance from Indian land, i.e., continental shelf and exclusive economic zone, where the assessee is posted in offshore installations. Therefore, it is the place of posting, which can be a geographical location in the present context, which is required to be treated as the place where duties of office are to be performed. The question of expenses, to meet which the allowances are given, becomes relevant only when the pilot steps out of the aircraft and stays in a place other than the place of his posting, and, therefore, these expenses cannot be said to be incurred during the performance of the duties or during the course of taking an aircraft from one place to another. A commercial pilot, in the course of performance of his duties, has to stay at various places not for performance of duties but in connection with performance of his duties. For example, if a Mumbai based commercial pilot has to stay in New Delhi overnight before he resumes or starts his flying duties on flights originating from there, he is to be treated as on tour to New Delhi in connection with his duties of office. The duties of his office include flying an aircraft, and he flies the aircraft at New Delhi also, but then his overnight stay in New Delhi cannot be said to be for flying an aircraft but can only be in connection with flying an aircraft. The allowances granted to the assessee are not for being in New Delhi while flying the aircraft but for staying in New Delhi to enable him to fly from New Delhi. Therefore, the allowances cannot be said to be for the purposes of meeting personal expenses at the place where duties of office are performed. It also not the revenues case that the allowances are granted to meet personal expenses where the assessee normally resides, because the question of these allowances comes into play only when the assessee goes out of the place where he normally resides. The allowances cannot, therefore, be said to have been granted for the purpose of meeting personal expenses of the place where the assessee resides or where the duties of office are performed. As for an allowance to meet increased cost of living, it can only refer to an allowance to supplement the cost of living and not to an allowance which is to meet the costs of ordinary daily charges on account from normal place of duty. The cost of living, in any event, only relevant for the place of the duties are normally performed, and not of the places where a person has to go in connection with performance of his duties. A place of duty, as we have discussed above, refers to a geographical location and, therefore, not an aircraft which cannot be stationary and has to move from place to place. It is also not in dispute that a daily allowance, though computed at hourly rate, is being paid to the assessee, and, for this reason also, rule 2BB(2)(iv) has no application in the cases where daily allowance is paid. Last few words of this entry are 'provided such employee is not in receipt of daily allowance'. For all these reasons, the provisions of section 10(14)(ii) and also of Rule 2BB(2)(iv) are not applicable on the facts of this case.<p style="text-align: justify;">21. The line of distinction between an allowance to meet expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively for the performance of duties, though prima facie of a personal nature, and an allowance to meet personal expenses simplicitor is very significant. Take for example, and allowance to meet the costs of transfer, packing of transportation of personal effects on transfer of an employee. Such an allowance, on the face of it, appears to be an allowance to meet personal expenses of an employee but since his transfer is in connection with the duties of an office, the same is treated as having been granted to meet the expenses to meet expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in connection with the duties of an office and an allowance granted to meet the cost of travel on tour or transfer' appearing in Rule 2BB(1)(a) and Explanation to the said Rule categorically so clarifies. In contrast to this example, let us take the case of Remote Locality Allowance paid to an employee who is posted in Nicobar Island. This allowance is covered by Rule 2BB(2)(2) to the extent of Rs. 1,300 per month, but there is no condition attached about the use of this allowance. Once an employee is posted in Nicobar Island, such a posting of the employee, by itself, entitles him the allowance and this is to meet the personal expenses of the employee. This allowance is therefore to meet personal expenses at the place of posting, as is the mandate of section 10(14)(ii). However, when the same employee travels back to mainland in connection with his duties and he gets and allowance to meet his ordinary daily charges on account of absence from normal place of duty, he will be entitled to exemption under section 10(14)(1) in respect of such allowances. In both the situations, allowance is to meet the personal expenses because, after all, ordinary daily charges are also personal expenses in nature but then personal expenses at the place of duty and personal expenses, necessitated by same is the case employee travels outside the place where he is posted and he gets an allowance to meet the costs of boarding and lodging, which is undoubtedly a personal expense in nature, the allowance so granted is treated as and to meet the ordinary daily charges incurred by an employee on account of absence from normal place of duty and thus 'wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in connection with the duties of an office or employment of profit'. Therefore, an allowance granted to a commercial pilot to meet his cost of meals, beverages, telephone and laundry etc. cannot be said to be for the purpose of meeting the increased cost of living as it is to meet the costs of ordinary daily charges on account of absence from normal place of duty. It is thus clear that the provisions of section 10(14)(ii) read with Rule 2BB(2)(iv) have no application in case the allowances are found to be covered by the provisions of section 10(14)(i) read with Rule 2BB(1)(b), and vice versa. These two sections operate in mutually exclusive are as inasmuch as application of one of the section is to the exclusion of the other section. In other words, revenue having accepted the allowances granted to the assessee are covered by section 10(14)(1), there is no room to invoke the provisions of section 10(14)(ii). It is materially different from the case of Capt. Harminder Singh (supra) wherein there was a categorical finding by the Tribunal that the allowances in question are not covered by the provisions of section 10(14)(1) read with Notification No. S.O. 143(E) which is in pari materia with Rule 2BB(1)(a) and (b), but that is no longer the case as revenue itself has allowed exemption under section 10(14)(i) read with Rule 2BB(1)(b) in respect of identical allowances. To that extent, the legal position, on the facts of the case before us and in the light of developments which have been taken note of hereinabove, is that the exemption under section 10(14)(1) is also available for allowances granted to the assessee in respect of tours of the assessee to domestic destinations as well, and that section 10(14)(ii) cannot be said to have any application in respect of such allowances.<p style="text-align: justify;">22. For the reasons set out above, we are of the considered view that, in principle, provisions of section 10(14)(1) will apply to the allowances received by the assessee for tours to places inside as also outside India, and the assessee will, accordingly, be eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(1) read with Rule 2BB(1)(b) in respect of such allowances.<p style="text-align: justify;">23. The next question then arises as to what is the extent to which exemption of allowances, in the absence of any evidence for actual use of allowance for the purpose for which such allowances are granted, can be granted under section 10(14)(1). Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed exemption to the extent of 50 per cent of allowances or Rs. 50,000, whichever is lower. It is difficult to comprehend as to how the quantum of allowance can determine the amount actually spent by the employee; in fact, it is the other way round. It is understandable that actual expenditure by the employees influences the quantum of allowance fixed by the employer, but not vice versa. The ceiling of exemption to the extent of 50 per cent of allowances is, therefore, devoid of any rationale. Similarly, the monetary ceiling of Rs. 50,000 per annum on the exemption of allowances under section 10(14)(i) is even more unfounded. That would be equating expenditure incurred by an employee who is on tour for, say, 180 days with someone who has been on tour for, say, 8 days. The basis for adopting this figure of Rs. 50,000 is also far from clear, and appears to be arbitrary. The quantum of exemption of allowances, as decided by the Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, does not meet our approval.<p style="text-align: justify;">24. The issue regarding extent to which exemption can be granted in the absence of evidence of actual expenditure, also came up before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of one Madanlal Mohanlal Narang, an employee of the shipping Corporation of India. In the said order dated 2 1 st April, 2006, reported as Madanlal Mohanlal Narang v. Assn. CIT (101 TTJ 1005), the Tribunal, inter ali,4 observed as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We find that the basic reason of declining the exemption claimed by the assessee is that the authorities below are not satisfied about evidence of the assessee having actually spent the amount allowance for the purposes for which the same were granted. A lot of emphasis is laid on the fact that section 10(14)(1) provides any allowance for the purpose of meeting expenses wholly necessarily and exclusively incurred for the purpose of official duties, as may be prescribed, but the exemption is available only to the extent 'to the which such expenses are actually incurred for that purposes'. The assessing officer has disallowed the exemption only on the basis that there were insufficient proof for the expenses having been actually incurred. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has also held that the appellant has not produced evidence regarding actual use of the allowances for the purpose for which the same were granted. Unlike the requirements of section 10(14)(ii) which provide for exemption of a prescribed allowance to the extent prescribed, under section 10(14)(i) exemption is indeed confined to the extent to which an exempt allowance is actually spent for the purposes for which such allowance is granted. In other words, actual use of an allowance is one of the conditions precedent for exemption under section 10(14)(1). This is in sharp contrast with the exemption provisions of section 10(14)(ii) under which even the quantum of exemption is to be prescribed by the Rules. Having taken note of this significant distinction, however, we much also appreciate the background in which this actual use condition was brought in the statute and true connotations thereof in the context of section 10(14)(i).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The expression to the extent to which such expenses are actually incurred, as finds place in section 10(14)(1), is not new to the Income-tax Act. It was first introduced, with effect from 1-4-1955, in section 4(3)(vi) of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922 which dealt with the exemption of allowances to the salaried employees. This amendment was made in the backdrop of Honble Bombay High Courts judgment in the case of Tejaji Frasaram Kharwalla v. CIT : [1948]16ITR260(Bom) wherein Their Lordships had held that exemption under section 4(3)(vi) was available even if portion of the allowance was not consumed and stood as surplus in the hands of the employees. Subsequently, though this decision was reversed by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Tejaji Frasaram Kharwalla : [1968]67ITR95(SC) , not before section 4(3)(vi) was amended, with effect from 1-4-1955, by Finance Act, 1955. This amendment, it appears, resulted in considerable apprehension amongst the salaried employees as to how can they be expected to maintain meticulous details and evidence of expenditure incurred by them for the actual usage of allowance. To allay these apprehensions, the Central Board of Direct Taxes on 1-8-1955, issued a circular which is reproduced below for ready reference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Special allowance or benefit being reasonable and not disproportionately high - No details of expenses actually incurred need be asked for the purpose of granting exemption under section 4(3)(vi) of 1922 Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The exemption under section 4(3)(vi) in respect of any special allowance or benefit will be available from the assessment year 1955-56 only to the extent of the sanctioned amounts. Generally speaking, where the specific allowance are reasonable with reference to the nature of the duties performed by the assessee and are not disproportionately high compared to the salary received by him, not attempt will ordinarily be made to call for details of the expenses actually incurred by him with a view to disentitling him to some extent from the exemption. An enquiry will, of course, be justified and will be made in cases where the allowances are prima facia unreasonably high.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Source: Direct Taxes Circulars</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Volume 1 - 1994 Edition - Page 1.130</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is, therefore, clear that even as the provisions were amended so as to allow the exemption of allowance only to the extent the allowances were used for the purposes for which the same were granted, even in this amendment did not vest the assessing officers powers to call for details of actual expenditure unless, generally speaking, the allowances are unreasonably high vis-a-vis salaries of the assessee or with reference to the nature of duties performed by the assessees.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The above circular was undoubtedly issued under the Income Tax Act, 1922 but then all the circulars issued under section 1922 Act, do not cease to hold good in law. Section 297(2)(k) specifically provides that notwithstanding the repeal of Income Tax Act, 1922, amongst other things, any instructions issued under any provisions of the repealed Act shall, so far as not inconsistent with the corresponding provisions of Income-Tax Act, 1961, deemed to have been issued under the corresponding provisions of the new Act, and shall continue to remain in force accordingly. In other words, to the extent the legal provisions of 1922 Act and 1961 Act are in pari materia, circulars and instructions issued under the 1922 Act will also hold good. The circular in view of the provisions of section 297(2)(k) it still holds good and continued to be in force. The expression used i.e., to the extent to which such expenses are actually incurred being absolutely identical in both the Acts, the provisions of the above circular, in our humble understanding, apply under the 1961 Act as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. in the light of the aforesaid circular it is not open to the revenue to call for the details of expenses actually incurred unless the specific allowance are disproportionately high compared to the salary received by him or unreasonable with reference to the nature of the duties performed by the assessee. It is, however, not the case of the revenue that the allowance granted to the assessee was unreasonable or excessive having regard to the salary of the assessee or the legitimate minimum requirement for the purpose for which the allowances were granted. We have also noted that the quantum of these allowances is prima facie reasonable vis-a-vis salary of the assessee and the purposes which the allowances were given....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is thus clear that unless the quantum of allowances in respect of which exemption under section 10(14)(i) is claimed is found to be excessive or unreasonable, there cannot be any occasion for the assessing officer to call for the actual evidence of expenditure.<p style="text-align: justify;">25. To demonstrate what can be considered reasonable allowance, learned counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to a copy of the circular # Q/FD/695/1/90, dated 28-3-1995 issued by the Government of India (Ministry of External Affairs) which sets out the rate at which a Government servant is entitled to daily allowance when he travels to various countries. The rate at which daily allowance is granted to the Government servants for some of the countries is as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Australia</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 75</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Austria</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 68</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Bahrain</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 51</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Canada</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 54</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Chaina</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 68</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Germany</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 75</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Hong Kong</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 75</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Ethiopia</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 50</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Indonesia</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 60</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Japan</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 75</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Kenya</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 50</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Korea</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 70</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Kuwait</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 74</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Malaysia</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 50</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Mauritius</p><p style="text-align: justify;">us $ 50</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Russian Federation</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 75</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Switzerland</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 58</p><p style="text-align: justify;">UAE</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 61</p><p style="text-align: justify;">UK</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 75</p><p style="text-align: justify;">USA</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 75</p><p style="text-align: justify;">These daily allowances are over and above the hotel charges and local conveyance expenses which are allowed on actual expense basis in the approved list of hotels, but wherever breakfast is included in the hotel tariff, the daily allowance is reduced by 10 per cent. On the strength of this Government circular, learned counsel contends that the allowance at the rate of US $ 75 is reasonable. It is, therefore, argued that to the extent of US $ 75 per day, the allowance granted to the assessee can be treated as a daily allowance to meet ordinary daily charges on account of absence from normal place of duty.<p style="text-align: justify;">26. Learned Departmental Representative vehemently contends that even if the allowance is granted at the rates prescribed by the Government, a person getting such an allowance is under an obligation to maintain record about evidences of expenses having been actually incurred. In the absence of evidence of allowance having actually been spent, according to the learned Departmental Representative, exemption under section 10(14)(i) in respect of the same will not be admissible. That contention, for the reasons set out by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Madanlal Mohanlal Narang (supra), cannot be accepted. The allowances fixed by the Government of India cannot be said to excessive or unreasonable vis-a-vis salaries of the employees or the purposes for which the allowances are granted, and, therefore, it cannot be open to the assessing officer to demand evidence of actual expenditure in respect of such allowances or in respect of similar allowances, to the persons drawing comparable salaries, of the same quantum. Keeping in view of the nature of job in aviation sector, as also keeping in mind the fact that aviation crew is generally required to stay in premium five star hotels where costs are high, we are of the considered view that the daily allowance at the rates prescribed for the Government employees which ranges between US $ 50 to US $ 75 per day (minus 10 per cent for the breakfast which is provided to the assessee by the airline employer), to meet the costs of meals, beverages and other incidental expenses, cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable allowance. To that extent, we accept the contention of the assessee. We direct the assessing officer to accordingly grant exemption under section 10(14)(i) to the allowances, by adopting daily rates so fixed by the Government of India as the maximum permissible rate eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(i) without productions of evidence of actual expenditure, out of the consolidated flying allowances received by the assessee. In case, however, the allowance actually received by the assessee for a particular day is less than the daily allowances fixed by the Government of India, the exemption will be restricted to the actual allowance received by the assessee.<p style="text-align: justify;">27. In order that the above directions can be given effect by the assessing officer, the assessee shall provide for the details of stay abroad in connection with the performance of duties of his office, and compute the exempt portion of daily allowance at the rates specified in the Government circular referred to above. Upon furnishing of these details by the assessee, the assessing officer shall grant exemption under section 10(14)(i) in respect of the allowances in the terms indicated above.<p style="text-align: justify;">28. We now come to the quantum of allowance to be treated as exempt under section 10(14)(i) in respect of allowances granted to the assessee to meet ordinary daily charges during the period he is away from his base station but is in India.<p style="text-align: justify;">29. The assessee has contended that a sum of Rs, 600 per day in respect of the above are fair and reasonable. No material has been brought on record by any of the authorities below to establish, or even indicate, that this quantum of allowance is excessive or unreasonable. We agree with learned counsels contention that having regard to high prices of meals and other incidental expenses at the places the airline crew members are required to stay in, a sum of Rs. 600 per day is hardly enough to meet the costs of two meals. We, therefore, see no reasons to reject the claim of the assessee. We direct the assessing officer to accordingly grant exemption under section 10(14)(i) to the allowances, by adopting daily rates so fixed by the Government of India as the maximum permissible rate eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(i) without productions of evidence of actual expenditure, out of the consolidated flying allowances received by the assessee. In case, however, the allowance actually received by the assessee for a particular day of stay in India, outside the place of posting, is less than Rs. 600 per day, the exemption will be restricted to the amount of actual allowance received. In order that the above directions can be given effect by the assessing officer, the assessee shall provide for and substantiate the details of stay in India outside the place of posting, in connection with the performance of duties of his office and compute the exempt portion of daily allowance at the rate of Rs. 600 per day as discussed above. Upon furnishing of these details by the assessee, the assessing officer shall grant exemption under section 10(14)(i) in respect of the allowances in the terms indicated above.<p style="text-align: justify;">30. For the reasons set out above, we uphold the contentions of the assessee in the terms indicated above. The matter will, however, go back to the file of the assessing officer for the limited purposes of quantification of relief in terms of our observations in the foregoing paragraphs.'<p style="text-align: justify;">6. The only material difference in this case is that the quantum of allowances is fixed by the airlines, and therefore the assessee has claimed that the entire allowance is exempt under section 10(14). The Commissioner (Appeals) has, however, allowed the exemption under section 10(14)(i), to the extent of Rs. 50,000 or 50 per cent of the allowance whichever is less, so far as allowances paid for travelling outside India are concerned. As regards the allowances paid for travelling inside India are concerned, the Commissioner (Appeals), has upheld the exemption under section 10(14)(ii) read with Notification No. 144(E) (Item No. 4) up to the prescribed limit, i.e., Rs. 1,000 per month.<p style="text-align: justify;">7. As regards the exemption of allowances for travel outside India is concerned, as we have noted above, the Commissioner himself, in exercise of his powers under section 264 and also by issuing administrative instructions, has accepted that exemption under section 10(14)(1) is permissible in respect of the same. Once the Administrative Commissioner accepts the position regarding applicability of exemption under section 10(14)(1) read with Notification No. 143(E), or under corresponding rule under the Income-Tax Rules, for these allowances when assessee travels abroad in connection with the flying duties, it cannot be open to the revenue to take a stand that those very allowances cease to be of the nature as to be covered by section 10(14)(1) read with the Notification No. 143(E). The only reason of disallowance was the applicability of section 10(14)(ii) read with Notification No. 144(E), or the corresponding rule, but then, as revenue itself has accepted applicability of section 10(14)(1) in respect of allowances drawn for travelling abroad in connection with the flying duties, there cannot be any good reason to decline exemption under section 10(14)(1) in respect of allowances paid for travelling within India. Once exemption under section 10(14)(1) is available in respect of these allowances, the same allowances cannot be subject-matter of exemption under section 10(14)(ii) as well. In any event, as we have noted earlier, section 10(14)(1) and section 10(14)(ii) operate in mutually exclusive areas. In Capt. Harminder Singhs case (supra), it was not the revenues stand that these allowances, when an employee travels abroad, will be eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(1). In any case, for the detailed reasons set out in the case of Capt. K.P. Singh v. Asstt. CIT and vice versa, allowances eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(ii) and section 10(14)(i) are operate in mutually exclusive areas and once an allowance is accepted to be eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(1), for that reason alone, eligibility for exemption under section 10(14)(ii) cannot be available. In these circumstances, and particularly bearing in mind the fact that revenue itself has now accepted that exemption under section 10(14)(1) is to be given for the allowances in connection with visits abroad, are of the view that the exemption of these allowances is to be granted under section 10(14)(i) for travelling within India as well.<p style="text-align: justify;">8. The next question then is of the quantum of allowances up to which the allowances are to be treated as exempt and whether the exemption can be granted in the absence of the evidences of actual expenditure. This question has already been addressed to in the case of Madanlal Mohan lal Narangv. Asstt. CIT referred to and extracted in the case of Capt. K.P. Singh v. CIT and vice versa by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal. In the said case, the Tribunal has concluded as follow :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">. . . it is not open to the revenue to call for the details of expenses actually incurred unless the specific allowances are disproportionately high compared to the salary received by him or unreasonable with reference to the nature of the duties performed by the assessee. It is, however, not the case of the revenue that the allowance granted to the assessee was unreasonable or excessive having regard to the salary of the assessee or the legitimate minimum requirement for the purpose for which the allowances were granted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the present case also, it is not the revenues case that the allowances received by the assessee are excessive or unreasonable vis-a-vis the salary of the assessee or the purposes for which the same are granted. No material has been brought before us to indicate that the allowances are excessive or unreasonable. However, on the lines of the view that we have decided in the case of Capt. K.P. Singh (supra), we think it fit and proper to restrict the exemption to the rate of daily allowance fixed by the Government of India, so far as foreign visits are concerned. These daily allowance rate have been set out earlier in this order while quoting extracts from our order in the case of Capt. K.P. Singh (supra). We direct the assessing officer to accordingly grant exemption under section 10(14)(i) to the allowances, by adopting daily rates so fixed by the Government of India as the maximum permissible rate eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(1) without productions of evidence of actual expenditure, out of the consolidated flying allowances received by the assessee. In case, however, the allowance actually received by the assessee for a particular day is less than the daily allowance fixed by the Government of India, the exemption will be restricted to the actual allowance received by the assessee. In order that the above directions can be given effect by the assessing officer, the assessee shall provide for the details of stay abroad in connection with the performance of duties of his office, and compute the exempt portion of daily allowance at the rates specified in the Government circular referred to above. Upon furnishing of these details by the assessee, the assessing officer shall grant exemption under section 10(14)(i) in respect of the allowances in the terms indicated above. We now come to the quantum of allowance to be treated as exempt under section 10(14)(i) in respect of allowances granted to the assessee to meet ordinary daily charges during the period he is away from his base station but is in India. In the case of Capt. K.P. Singh (supra) a commercial pilot working for Air India Limited, we have held that having regard to high prices of meals and other incidental expenses at the places the airline crew members are required to stay in, a sum of Rs. 600 per day, or the actual allowance - whichever is less, to be allowed exemption under section 10(14)(1). We see no reasons to take any other view of the matter in the present case. Accordingly, we direct the assessing officer to accordingly grant exemption under section 10(14)(1) to the allowances, up to an amount of Rs. 600 per day without productions of evidence of actual expenditure, out of the total flying allowances received by the assessee for a day. As for the absence from normal place of duty for less than one day but more than 12 hours, the limit of exemption under section 10(14)(1), in accordance with the Government of India rules, will be the same. If this period is 6 hours or less, no portion of the amount can be taken as exempt. Where however, such period is less than 12 hours but 6 hours or more, the exemption will be confined to 70 per cent of the limit i.e., Rs. 420. In case, however, the allowance actually received by the assessee for a particular day of stay in India, outside the place of posting, is less than the amounts so specified above, the exemption will be restricted to the amount of actual allowance received. in order that the above directions can be given effect by the assessing officer, the assessee shall provide for and substantiate the details of stay in India outside the place of posting, in connection with the performance of duties of his office and compute the exempt portion of daily allowance at the rate of Rs. 600 per day as discussed above. In case, however, the visit to place outside the place of duty is for less than one day. Upon furnishing of these details by the assessee, the assessing officer shall grant exemption under section 10(14)(i) in respect of the allowances in the terms indicated above.<p style="text-align: justify;">9. For the reasons set out above, while we reject the contention of the revenue so far as the issue of grant of exemption to impugned allowances is concerned, and we uphold the contentions of the assessee in the terms indicated above. The matter will, however, go back to the file of the assessing officer for the limited purposes of quantification of relief in terms of our observations in the foregoing paragraphs.<p style="text-align: justify;">10. The only other issue left is revenues grievance against Commissioner (Appeal)s direction to the effect that interest under section 234A is to be charged only for the period for which the assessee was permitted to file the income-tax returns i.e., for two years. This issue is also covered in favour of the assessee by a series of orders of various Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal, copies of which were filed before us at pages 4 to 23 of the paper book. In these decisions, namely in the cases of Capt. EB Karadia, Ms. Priti Pithawala v. ITO (2003) 129 Taxman 79 (Mum) Nupur Rohinda, F.S. Vajifdar, Ms. Sidha Salian and Capt. A.K. Munial, the Tribunal has consistently taken the view that the matter is required to be restored to the file of the assessing officer for fresh computation of interest chargeable under section 234A of the Act only for the period for which it was possible for the assessee to file the income-tax return and in the light of Tribunal in the case of Ms. Priti Pithawala v. ITO (2003) 129 Taxman (Mag.) 79. We see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by the Co-ordinate Benches. The Commissioner (Appeals) has only restored to the file of the assessing officer for re-computation of interest under section 234A in terms of our above observations. We, therefore, confirm the action of the Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard as well, and decline to interfere on this count as well.<p style="text-align: justify;">11. In the result, while the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[2006]9SOT322(NULL)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Capt. H.R. Vinayak',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '367002'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'ito, Ward 27(1)(3), Mumbai Vs. Capt. H.R. Vinayak Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 1 => 'section 144',
		(int) 2 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 3 => 'section 234',
		(int) 4 => 'section 234A',
		(int) 5 => 'section 234(1)(b',
		(int) 6 => 'section 234A',
		(int) 7 => 'section 234A',
		(int) 8 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 9 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 10 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 11 => 'section 143(1)(a',
		(int) 12 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 13 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 14 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 15 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 16 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 17 => 'section 264',
		(int) 18 => 'section 264',
		(int) 19 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 20 => 'section 264',
		(int) 21 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 22 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 23 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 24 => 'section 264',
		(int) 25 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 26 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 27 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 28 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 29 => 'section 264',
		(int) 30 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 31 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 32 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 33 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 34 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 35 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 36 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 37 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 38 => 'section 264',
		(int) 39 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 40 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 41 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 42 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 43 => 'section 17',
		(int) 44 => 'Rule 2BB',
		(int) 45 => 'section 14',
		(int) 46 => 'section 10',
		(int) 47 => 'section 10',
		(int) 48 => 'section 17(2',
		(int) 49 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 50 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 51 => 'section 17(2',
		(int) 52 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 53 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 54 => 'section 264',
		(int) 55 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 56 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 57 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 58 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 59 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 60 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 61 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 62 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 63 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 64 => 'section 10(14)(i).7',
		(int) 65 => 'the Income Tax Act',
		(int) 66 => 'section 1922 Act',
		(int) 67 => 'Income Tax Act',
		(int) 68 => 'section 297(2)(k',
		(int) 69 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 70 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 71 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 72 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 73 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 74 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 75 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 76 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 77 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 78 => 'section 264',
		(int) 79 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 80 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 81 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 82 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 83 => 'section 10(14)(ii',
		(int) 84 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 85 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 86 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 87 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 88 => 'section 10(14)(i',
		(int) 89 => 'section 234A',
		(int) 90 => 'section 234A of the Act',
		(int) 91 => 'section 234A'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Gupta',
		(int) 1 => 'Priti',
		(int) 2 => 'V.K. Verma',
		(int) 3 => 'Harminder',
		(int) 4 => 'V.K. Verma',
		(int) 5 => 'Bench',
		(int) 6 => 'K.P. Singh',
		(int) 7 => 'V.K. Verma v. Asstt',
		(int) 8 => 'Harminder Singh v. Income-tax Officer',
		(int) 9 => 'V.K. Verma v. ITO',
		(int) 10 => 'U.A. Joglekar',
		(int) 11 => 'Shailaja Ramamurthy',
		(int) 12 => 'Neo Poly Pack Pvt',
		(int) 13 => 'Notification Nos',
		(int) 14 => 'Harminder Singh',
		(int) 15 => 'Harminder Singh',
		(int) 16 => 'Harminder Singhs',
		(int) 17 => 'Harminder Singhs',
		(int) 18 => 'Harminder Singh',
		(int) 19 => 'Bench',
		(int) 20 => 'V.K. Verma',
		(int) 21 => 'Bench',
		(int) 22 => 'Harminder Singh',
		(int) 23 => 'V.K. Verma',
		(int) 24 => 'V.K. Vermas',
		(int) 25 => 'Harminder Singh',
		(int) 26 => 'Vermas',
		(int) 27 => 'Bench',
		(int) 28 => 'Harminder Singhs',
		(int) 29 => 'V.K. Verma',
		(int) 30 => 'Harminder Singh',
		(int) 31 => 'Bench',
		(int) 32 => 'Madanlal Mohanlal Narang',
		(int) 33 => 'Madanlal Mohanlal Narang v. Assn',
		(int) 34 => 'Tejaji Frasaram Kharwalla v.',
		(int) 35 => 'Lordships',
		(int) 36 => 'Tejaji Frasaram Kharwalla',
		(int) 37 => 'Bench',
		(int) 38 => 'above.30',
		(int) 39 => 'Rs',
		(int) 40 => 'Harminder Singhs',
		(int) 41 => 'K.P. Singh v. Asstt',
		(int) 42 => 'Madanlal Mohan',
		(int) 43 => 'Narangv',
		(int) 44 => 'K.P. Singh v. CIT',
		(int) 45 => 'Bench',
		(int) 46 => 'K.P. Singh',
		(int) 47 => 'K.P. Singh',
		(int) 48 => 'K.P. Singh',
		(int) 49 => 'Rs',
		(int) 50 => 'Benches of',
		(int) 51 => 'EB Karadia',
		(int) 52 => 'Priti Pithawala',
		(int) 53 => 'Mum',
		(int) 54 => 'Nupur Rohinda',
		(int) 55 => 'F.S. Vajifdar',
		(int) 56 => 'Sidha Salian',
		(int) 57 => 'A.K. Munial',
		(int) 58 => 'Priti',
		(int) 59 => 'Taxman',
		(int) 60 => 'Mag',
		(int) 61 => 'Benches'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Indian Airlines Ltd.',
		(int) 1 => 'the Income-Tax Act',
		(int) 2 => 'Indian Airlines',
		(int) 3 => 'S.0.143(E',
		(int) 4 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
		(int) 5 => 'S.0.143(E',
		(int) 6 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
		(int) 7 => 'Pithawala v. ITO',
		(int) 8 => 'ITA No',
		(int) 9 => 'the Income-Tax Act',
		(int) 10 => 'Income-Tax (Appeals',
		(int) 11 => 'Income-Tax (Appeals',
		(int) 12 => 'Income-Tax (Appeals',
		(int) 13 => 'Income-Tax (Appeals',
		(int) 14 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 15 => 'Asstt',
		(int) 16 => 'CIT',
		(int) 17 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 18 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 19 => 'CIT',
		(int) 20 => 'inter alia',
		(int) 21 => 'Air India Limited',
		(int) 22 => 'ITD',
		(int) 23 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
		(int) 24 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
		(int) 25 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
		(int) 26 => 'the Delhi Bench',
		(int) 27 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 28 => 'ITA No',
		(int) 29 => 'The Commissioner (Appeals',
		(int) 30 => 'the Income-Tax Act',
		(int) 31 => 'the Income-Tax Act',
		(int) 32 => 'the Income-Tax Act',
		(int) 33 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
		(int) 34 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
		(int) 35 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
		(int) 36 => 'The Commissioner (Appeals',
		(int) 37 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
		(int) 38 => 'Income-Tax',
		(int) 39 => 'inter alia',
		(int) 40 => 'Indian Airlines',
		(int) 41 => 'the Income-Tax Act',
		(int) 42 => 'The Commissioner (Appeals',
		(int) 43 => 'Indian Airlines',
		(int) 44 => 'Indian Airlines',
		(int) 45 => 'Appellate',
		(int) 46 => 'Union of India',
		(int) 47 => 'Honble Supreme Court',
		(int) 48 => 'the Honble Supreme Court',
		(int) 49 => 'Berger Paints India Limited',
		(int) 50 => 'the Honble Delhi High Court',
		(int) 51 => 'CWT v. RKKR Industries Private Limited 198',
		(int) 52 => 'CTR',
		(int) 53 => 'CIT',
		(int) 54 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 55 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 56 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 57 => 'the Administrative Commissioners',
		(int) 58 => 'the Tribunal in Capt',
		(int) 59 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 60 => 'Harminder Singhs',
		(int) 61 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 62 => 'Board',
		(int) 63 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
		(int) 64 => 'inter alia',
		(int) 65 => 'Commissioner (Appeals',
		(int) 66 => 'Neeta Kulkarni',
		(int) 67 => 'CIT',
		(int) 68 => 'XXVII/ITO',
		(int) 69 => 'AR',
		(int) 70 => 'the CIT (Appeals',
		(int) 71 => 'AR',
		(int) 72 => 'Indian Airlines',
		(int) 73 => 'AR',
		(int) 74 => 'CBDT',
		(int) 75 => 'AR',
		(int) 76 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
		(int) 77 => 'the Tribunal in Capt',
		(int) 78 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 79 => 'the Administrative Commission',
		(int) 80 => 'Extent',
		(int) 81 => 'State',
		(int) 82 => 'continental',
		(int) 83 => 'Remote Locality Allowance',
		(int) 84 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 85 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
		(int) 86 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 87 => 'Corporation of India',
		(int) 88 => 'CIT',
		(int) 89 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 90 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
		(int) 91 => 'the Indian Income-Tax Act',
		(int) 92 => 'Honble Bombay High Courts',
		(int) 93 => 'the Honble Supreme Court',
		(int) 94 => 'CIT',
		(int) 95 => 'the Central Board of Direct Taxes',
		(int) 96 => 'Income-Tax Act',
		(int) 97 => 'the Government of India',
		(int) 98 => 'Ministry of External Affairs',
		(int) 99 => 'Government',
		(int) 100 => 'Government',
		(int) 101 => 'Government',
		(int) 102 => 'Learned Departmental Representative',
		(int) 103 => 'Departmental Representative',
		(int) 104 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 105 => 'the Government of India',
		(int) 106 => 'Government',
		(int) 107 => 'the Government of India',
		(int) 108 => 'the Government of India',
		(int) 109 => 'Government',
		(int) 110 => 'the Government of India',
		(int) 111 => 'The Commissioner (Appeals',
		(int) 112 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals',
		(int) 113 => 'Administrative',
		(int) 114 => 'CIT',
		(int) 115 => 'Asstt',
		(int) 116 => 'CIT',
		(int) 117 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 118 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 119 => 'the Government of India',
		(int) 120 => 'the Government of India',
		(int) 121 => 'the Government of India',
		(int) 122 => 'Government',
		(int) 123 => 'Air India Limited',
		(int) 124 => 'the Government of India',
		(int) 125 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 126 => 'ITO',
		(int) 127 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 128 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 129 => 'Pithawala v. ITO',
		(int) 130 => 'the Commissioner (Appeals'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1961',
		(int) 1 => '1990-91',
		(int) 2 => 'S.O. 143(E',
		(int) 3 => 'previous year',
		(int) 4 => '63 82',
		(int) 5 => 'two years',
		(int) 6 => 'the assessment year 1997-98',
		(int) 7 => 'daily',
		(int) 8 => '78',
		(int) 9 => '1992',
		(int) 10 => '5876',
		(int) 11 => 'previous year',
		(int) 12 => '75 per day',
		(int) 13 => '30-5-2003',
		(int) 14 => 'the assessment year 1994-95',
		(int) 15 => '1989',
		(int) 16 => 'years 1995-96',
		(int) 17 => '1996-97',
		(int) 18 => '1992',
		(int) 19 => 'the year',
		(int) 20 => 'previous year',
		(int) 21 => '1993-94',
		(int) 22 => 'previous year',
		(int) 23 => '1,000 per month',
		(int) 24 => 'June',
		(int) 25 => 'the rest of',
		(int) 26 => 'nine months',
		(int) 27 => 'the assessment year 1993-94',
		(int) 28 => 'the assessment year 1997-98',
		(int) 29 => '11(3)/96/2001-02',
		(int) 30 => '1107',
		(int) 31 => 'S.O. 143(E',
		(int) 32 => 'a previous year',
		(int) 33 => 'daily',
		(int) 34 => 'daily',
		(int) 35 => 'daily',
		(int) 36 => 'daily',
		(int) 37 => 'daily',
		(int) 38 => 'Rule 2BB(1)(a',
		(int) 39 => '1,300 per month',
		(int) 40 => 'S.O. 143(E',
		(int) 41 => '180 days',
		(int) 42 => '8 days',
		(int) 43 => '2 1 st April, 2006',
		(int) 44 => '1005',
		(int) 45 => '1922',
		(int) 46 => '1955',
		(int) 47 => 'the assessment year 1955-56',
		(int) 48 => '1922',
		(int) 49 => '1922',
		(int) 50 => '1961',
		(int) 51 => 'daily',
		(int) 52 => 'daily',
		(int) 53 => 'daily',
		(int) 54 => 'daily',
		(int) 55 => 'daily',
		(int) 56 => 'daily',
		(int) 57 => 'daily',
		(int) 58 => 'a particular day',
		(int) 59 => 'daily',
		(int) 60 => 'daily',
		(int) 61 => 'daily',
		(int) 62 => 'a particular day',
		(int) 63 => 'daily',
		(int) 64 => '600 per day',
		(int) 65 => 'daily',
		(int) 66 => 'daily',
		(int) 67 => 'daily',
		(int) 68 => 'a particular day',
		(int) 69 => 'daily',
		(int) 70 => 'daily',
		(int) 71 => 'a day',
		(int) 72 => 'less than one day',
		(int) 73 => 'a particular day',
		(int) 74 => 'daily',
		(int) 75 => '600 per day',
		(int) 76 => 'less than one day',
		(int) 77 => 'two years',
		(int) 78 => '2003',
		(int) 79 => '2003',
		(int) 80 => '79'
	),
	'MONEY' => array(
		(int) 0 => '50 per cent',
		(int) 1 => '50 per cent',
		(int) 2 => '40',
		(int) 3 => '50 per cent',
		(int) 4 => '50 per cent',
		(int) 5 => '50 per cent',
		(int) 6 => '50 per cent',
		(int) 7 => '60 per cent',
		(int) 8 => '50 per cent',
		(int) 9 => '60 per cent',
		(int) 10 => '60 per cent',
		(int) 11 => '70 per cent',
		(int) 12 => '50 per cent',
		(int) 13 => '50 per cent',
		(int) 14 => '1922 Act',
		(int) 15 => '1922 Act and 1961 Act',
		(int) 16 => '$ 75AustriaUS $',
		(int) 17 => '$ 51CanadaUS $',
		(int) 18 => '54ChainaUS',
		(int) 19 => '75Hong',
		(int) 20 => '$ 75EthiopiaUS $',
		(int) 21 => '50IndonesiaUS',
		(int) 22 => '75KenyaUS',
		(int) 23 => '$ 50KoreaUS $',
		(int) 24 => '70KuwaitUS',
		(int) 25 => '75These',
		(int) 26 => '10 per cent',
		(int) 27 => '75',
		(int) 28 => '75',
		(int) 29 => 'between US $ 50 to US $ 75 per day',
		(int) 30 => 'minus 10 per cent',
		(int) 31 => '50 per cent',
		(int) 32 => '70 per cent'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '50,000',
		(int) 1 => '21',
		(int) 2 => '21',
		(int) 3 => '21',
		(int) 4 => 'one',
		(int) 5 => '12-3-2003',
		(int) 6 => '234(1',
		(int) 7 => '234A(3',
		(int) 8 => '50,000',
		(int) 9 => '24-8-2001',
		(int) 10 => '2',
		(int) 11 => '30-6-1997',
		(int) 12 => '3,82,184',
		(int) 13 => '3,82,184',
		(int) 14 => '3,82,184',
		(int) 15 => '62',
		(int) 16 => '144(E',
		(int) 17 => '21',
		(int) 18 => '1',
		(int) 19 => '3,000',
		(int) 20 => '30,000',
		(int) 21 => '36,000',
		(int) 22 => '3,000',
		(int) 23 => '32,97,850',
		(int) 24 => '3,000',
		(int) 25 => '2BB',
		(int) 26 => '50,000',
		(int) 27 => '50,000',
		(int) 28 => '600',
		(int) 29 => 'One',
		(int) 30 => '2',
		(int) 31 => '21',
		(int) 32 => '50,000....6',
		(int) 33 => '24',
		(int) 34 => '50,000',
		(int) 35 => '14-3-2002',
		(int) 36 => '50,000',
		(int) 37 => '16',
		(int) 38 => '2001]249ITR219(SC',
		(int) 39 => 'one',
		(int) 40 => '2004]266ITR99(SC',
		(int) 41 => '2000]245ITR492(Delhi',
		(int) 42 => 'one',
		(int) 43 => '21',
		(int) 44 => '1',
		(int) 45 => '30,000',
		(int) 46 => '3,000',
		(int) 47 => '36,000',
		(int) 48 => '30,000',
		(int) 49 => '3,000',
		(int) 50 => '1,000',
		(int) 51 => '3 plus Rs',
		(int) 52 => '3,000',
		(int) 53 => '9',
		(int) 54 => '30,000',
		(int) 55 => '144(E',
		(int) 56 => '21',
		(int) 57 => '1',
		(int) 58 => '1',
		(int) 59 => '144(E',
		(int) 60 => '22-8-2001',
		(int) 61 => '19-12-2001',
		(int) 62 => '28',
		(int) 63 => '5',
		(int) 64 => '30-3-1990',
		(int) 65 => '10',
		(int) 66 => '14',
		(int) 67 => '2',
		(int) 68 => '2BB',
		(int) 69 => '1',
		(int) 70 => '14',
		(int) 71 => 'one',
		(int) 72 => '3,000',
		(int) 73 => 'one',
		(int) 74 => '3,000',
		(int) 75 => '2BB(1)(b)-of',
		(int) 76 => '3',
		(int) 77 => 'one',
		(int) 78 => '2BB(2)(2',
		(int) 79 => 'two',
		(int) 80 => 'one',
		(int) 81 => '2BB(1)(a',
		(int) 82 => '50,000',
		(int) 83 => '50,000',
		(int) 84 => '50,000',
		(int) 85 => 'one',
		(int) 86 => '101',
		(int) 87 => '6',
		(int) 88 => '1-4-1955',
		(int) 89 => '1948]16ITR260(Bom',
		(int) 90 => '1968]67ITR95(SC',
		(int) 91 => '1-4-1955',
		(int) 92 => '1',
		(int) 93 => '28-3-1995',
		(int) 94 => 'five',
		(int) 95 => '600',
		(int) 96 => '600',
		(int) 97 => 'two',
		(int) 98 => '600',
		(int) 99 => '50,000',
		(int) 100 => '144(E',
		(int) 101 => '4',
		(int) 102 => '1,000',
		(int) 103 => '144(E',
		(int) 104 => '600',
		(int) 105 => '600',
		(int) 106 => '420',
		(int) 107 => '4 to 23',
		(int) 108 => '129',
		(int) 109 => '129'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Mumbai',
		(int) 1 => 'Mumbai',
		(int) 2 => 'Delhi',
		(int) 3 => 'Mumbai',
		(int) 4 => 'assessee',
		(int) 5 => 'India',
		(int) 6 => 'India',
		(int) 7 => 'India',
		(int) 8 => 'US',
		(int) 9 => 'India',
		(int) 10 => 'India',
		(int) 11 => 'New Delhi',
		(int) 12 => 'India',
		(int) 13 => 'India',
		(int) 14 => 'India',
		(int) 15 => 'India',
		(int) 16 => 'XXVII',
		(int) 17 => 'Mumbai',
		(int) 18 => 'Mumbai',
		(int) 19 => 'India',
		(int) 20 => 'India',
		(int) 21 => 'India',
		(int) 22 => 'India',
		(int) 23 => 'India',
		(int) 24 => 'Mumbai',
		(int) 25 => 'London',
		(int) 26 => 'Mumbai',
		(int) 27 => 'India',
		(int) 28 => 'States',
		(int) 29 => 'Mumbai',
		(int) 30 => 'New Delhi',
		(int) 31 => 'New Delhi',
		(int) 32 => 'New Delhi',
		(int) 33 => 'New Delhi',
		(int) 34 => 'New Delhi',
		(int) 35 => 'New Delhi',
		(int) 36 => 'New Delhi',
		(int) 37 => 'India',
		(int) 38 => 'US',
		(int) 39 => 'US',
		(int) 40 => 'India',
		(int) 41 => 'India',
		(int) 42 => 'India',
		(int) 43 => 'India',
		(int) 44 => 'India',
		(int) 45 => 'India',
		(int) 46 => 'India',
		(int) 47 => 'India',
		(int) 48 => 'India',
		(int) 49 => 'India'
	),
	'EVENT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'SO 487(E',
		(int) 1 => 'US Dollars',
		(int) 2 => 'SO 487(E',
		(int) 3 => 'SO 487(E',
		(int) 4 => 'Edition - Page 1.130It'
	),
	'LOC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Harminder Singhs',
		(int) 1 => 'Nicobar Island',
		(int) 2 => 'Nicobar Island'
	),
	'QUANTITY' => array(
		(int) 0 => '20-2-2002'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'ITAT',
		(int) 1 => 'Indian',
		(int) 2 => 'allowance4.Any',
		(int) 3 => 'Indian'
	),
	'TIME' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'overnight',
		(int) 1 => 'overnight',
		(int) 2 => 'hourly',
		(int) 3 => 'more than 12 hours',
		(int) 4 => '6 hours',
		(int) 5 => 'less than 12 hours',
		(int) 6 => '6 hours'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'first'
	),
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Madanlal Mohanlal Narang'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '367002',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'It Appeal No. 6023 (Mum.) of 2003 C.O. No. 135 (Mum.) of 2006 ,  A.Y. 1990-91 ,  23 June 2006',
		'appellant' => 'ito, Ward 27(1)(3), Mumbai',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'ito, Ward 27(1)(3), Mumbai Vs. Capt. H.R. Vinayak',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 34: [D.K. Deshmukh, S.J. Vazifdar & J.P. Devadhar, JJ] Court fee on Petition under Section 34 of the Act  Bombay Court Fees Act (36 of 1959), Schedule I, Article 3, Schedule II, Article 1(f)(iii)  Held, According to Article 3 of Schedule I, on any plaint, application or petition or memorandum of appeal for setting aside or modifying an award, same court fee is payable as is payable on a plaint or memorandum of appeal under Article 1. Thus, when an award is challenged by a plaint, application, petition or memorandum of appeal, court fee is payable on ad valorem basis. But from this requirement of payment of court fee on ad valorem basis, Article 3 excludes an application or petition or memorandum of appeal filed in civil or revenue Court challenging any award made under the Arbitration Act, 1940.Thus, the provisions of Article 3 of Schedule 1 do not apply when an application is filed or appeal is filed challenging an award made under the Arbitration Act, 1940. Thus the provisions of Article 3 of Schedule I do not apply when an application is filed challenging an award made under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The question, therefore, that arises for consideration is whether reference to the provisions of 1940 Act found in Article 3 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act can be said to include reference to the 1996 Act. Perusal of the provisions of Section 8 of General Clauses Act shows that where by a Central enactment any provision of a former enactment is repealed and re-enacted with or without modification then reference in any other enactment to the provisions so repealed shall, unless a different intention appears, be construed as references to the provisions so re-enacted.  In the present case, it is common ground that the former enactment is the 1940 Act, the new enactment is the 1996 Act and any other enactment is the Bombay Court fees Act, the only provision of the 1940 Act referred to in Article 3 of Schedule 1 of the Bombay Court Fees Act is the provisions of Section 33 of the 1940Act and  bare comparison of that provision with the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the 1996 Act shows that the provision of Section 33 of 1940 Act is repealed and re-enacted in sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the 1996 Act with slight modification. Therefore, reference to the provisions of Section 33 of the 1940 Act in Article 3 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Court Fees Act has to be construed, in view of the provisions of Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, as reference to the provisions of Section 34 of the 1996 Act. So far as an appeal filed under Section 37 of the 1996 Act is concerned, perusal of Section 37 shows that an appeal is provided to the appellate Court against an order setting aside an arbitral award or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34. Thus, as the provisions of Article 3 of Schedule-I do not apply to an application or petition filed under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, they will also not apply to the memorandum of appeal filed to set aside or modify an award made by the Arbitrator under the 1996 Act. In other words nothing contained in Article 3 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Court Fees Act applies to an application, petition or memorandum of appeal to set aside or modify any Award made under the 1996 Act as it does not apply to an application or petition or memorandum of appeal to set aside or modify an Award made under the Arbitration Act, 1940. Perusal of the provisions of Section 8 of the General Clauses Act shows that references in any other enactment to a provision in a former enactment is to be construed as reference to re-enacted provision in the new enactment unless a different intention appears. The different intention may appear either in the new enactment or in the other enactment. Nothing was pointed out either in the 1996 Act or in the Bombay Court Fees Act which can be construed as a different intention or which will show that it was not the intention of the Maharashtra legislature to exclude an application or petition or memorandum of appeal filed in Court to set aside or modify an award made under the 1996 Act, from the provisions of Article 3 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Court Fees Act. It appears that the intention behind excluding an application made, challenging the Award made under the 1940 Act, from requirement of payment of ad valorem Court fee which is required to be paid if the same litigant filed a suit on the same subject matter, was to encourage a litigant to go for arbitration instead of filing a suit. Nothing has been pointed out to show that ther4e is any change in that legislative policy. On the contrary, from the preamble of the 1996 Act it is clear that the policy of the legislature is to encourage people to adopt the mode of arbitration for resolving disputes. Article 3 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Court Fees Act does not apply to a petition,  application or memorandum of appeal filed for challenging an Award made under the 1996 Act, and Court fee on a petition filed under Section 34 of the 1996 Act challenging an Award in High Court is payable according to Article 1(f)(iii) of Schedule II. 

Section 37: [D.K. Deshmukh, S.J. Vazifdar & J.P. Devadhar, JJ] Court fee on Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Held, Court fee is payable according to Article 13 of Schedule II of the Bombay Court Fees Act.

Schedule I, Article 3 & Schedule II, Article 1(f)(iii): [D.K. Deshmukh, S.J. Vazifdar & J.P. Devadhar, JJ] Court fee on Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Held, When a Petition under Section 34 is to be filed before a Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction which is not a High Court, the question arises which Article of either First Schedule or Second Schedule would apply. In so far as the challenge to an Award made under the 1940 Act is concerned, an application under Section 33 of that Act could be made to a Civil Court and therefore, payment of Court fee was governed by Article 1(a) of Schedule II. This was so because the application was to be presented to the Court of Civil Judge which was not a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. But now because of change of definition of term Court in the 1996 Act, a petition has to be presented, challenging an Award made under the 1996 Act in terms of the provisions of Section 34 thereof, before the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. No entry either in the first Schedule or in the Second Schedule was pointed out which applies to an application or petition to be made before the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, and therefore, when a litigant wants to file petition before a Principal Civil Court having original jurisdiction which is not High Court, challenging an Award made under the 1996 Act, no court fee under Bombay Court Fees Act is payable because of absence of a general or specific provision. Therefore, it can be said that no Court  fee under the Bombay Court Fees Act is payable when a petition under Section 34 challenging an Award is filed before any Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction which is not High Court. 

Schedule II, Article 13: [D.K. Deshmukh, S.J. Vazifdar & J.P. Devadhar, JJ] Court fee on Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Held, Court fee is payable according to Article 13 of Schedule II of the Bombay Court Fees Act. -  In the said case, we have, inter alia, observed as follows :2. The factual matrix giving rise to this litigation before us is like this. None of the parties is satisfied with this order. 9. There are, however, other reasons for rejecting revenues grievance on merits as well. Harminder Singh (supra) is now good in law, particularly after Tribunals subsequent order in the case of Capt. It is interesting to note that the Tribunal in Capt. 17. As for the nature of allowance which are exempt under section 10(14)(ii), in terms of plain words of the statutory provisions under that section, the following conditions are required to be satisfied :the allowance should be granted to meet personal expenses of the assessee or to compensate him for the increased cost of living; Once the above conditions, as laid down under the statute are satisfied, the exemption is available in respect of the allowance granted to an assessee working in any transport system and to meet personal expenses of such assessee during the course of running of such transport from one place to another; To that extent, the legal position, on the facts of the case before us and in the light of developments which have been taken note of hereinabove, is that the exemption under section 10(14)(1) is also available for allowances granted to the assessee in respect of tours of the assessee to domestic destinations as well, and that section 10(14)(ii) cannot be said to have any application in respect of such allowances. CIT (101 TTJ 1005), the Tribunal, inter ali,4 observed as follows :6. We find that the basic reason of declining the exemption claimed by the assessee is that the authorities below are not satisfied about evidence of the assessee having actually spent the amount allowance for the purposes for which the same were granted. 8. The above circular was undoubtedly issued under the Income Tax Act, 1922 but then all the circulars issued under section 1922 Act, do not cease to hold good in law. In other words, to the extent the legal provisions of 1922 Act and 1961 Act are in pari materia, circulars and instructions issued under the 1922 Act will also hold good. The circular in view of the provisions of section 297(2)(k) it still holds good and continued to be in force. , to the extent to which such expenses are actually incurred being absolutely identical in both the Acts, the provisions of the above circular, in our humble understanding, apply under the 1961 Act as well. 144(E), or the corresponding rule, but then, as revenue itself has accepted applicability of section 10(14)(1) in respect of allowances drawn for travelling abroad in connection with the flying duties, there cannot be any good reason to decline exemption under section 10(14)(1) in respect of allowances paid for travelling within India. Once exemption under section 10(14)(1) is available in respect of these allowances, the same allowances cannot be subject-matter of exemption under section 10(14)(ii) as well. In these circumstances, and particularly bearing in mind the fact that revenue itself has now accepted that exemption under section 10(14)(1) is to be given for the allowances in connection with visits abroad, are of the view that the exemption of these allowances is to be granted under section 10(14)(i) for travelling within India as well. We, therefore, confirm the action of the Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard as well, and decline to interfere on this count as well.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '  Ajay, <i>for the Assessee</i> , 
 Rajnish Agarwal, <i>for the Revenue</i>.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-06-23',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => '',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">G.C. Gupta, J.M.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The short issue requiring our adjudication in this case is whether or not the allowances received by the assessee - who is a commercial pilot working for Indian Airlines Ltd. while he is away from his normal place of duty in connection with the flying duties, are exempt under section 10(14)(i) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, and if these are held to be exempt, to what extent exemption under section 10(14)(1) can be granted in the absence of actual evidence of expenditure incurred by the assessee.<p style="text-align: justify;">2. The assessment year involved in this appeal is 1990-91 and the assessment order in question is framed under section 144 read with section 147(a) of the Act.<p style="text-align: justify;">3. Grounds of appeal as taken by the revenue are as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in directing the assessing officer to allow exemption of allowances received on duty abroad under section 10(14)(ii) to the extent of 50 per cent of the allowances or Rs. 50,000 whichever is less, because of the following reasons :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) The assessee being an Indian Airlines on board crew, it cannot be said that the journey performed on board on trips abroad is same as journey performed on tour, so as to come within the ambit of clause (b) of Notification No. S.0.143(E), dated 21-2-1989.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Clause (b) of Notification No. S.O. 143(E), dated 21-2-1989 is not applicable to the facts of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Without prejudice to (i) and (ii) above, the assessee has produced no evidence, whatsoever either before the assessing officer or before the Commissioner (Appeals) to prove that the assessee, in fact had performed journey to foreign stations during the relevant previous year and incurred any expenditure on these hypothetical journey abroad.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The specific provision contained in clause (4) of Notification No. S.0.143(E), dated 21-2-1989 regarding any allowance granted to an employee working in any transport system to meet his personal expenditure during his duty performed in the course of running such transport from one place to another place, is applicable to the facts of this case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in setting aside the issue of charging interest under section 234 relying on the decision of Honble ITAT, Mumbai, in the case of Ms. Priti Pithawala v. ITO in ITA No. 63 82 /Mum. /2002, dated 12-3-2003 and has further erred in directing the assessing officer to calculate the interest under section 234A only for a limited period of two years for the following reasons :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) In the present case, no return of income was filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) In the present case, provisions of section 234(1)(b) is applicable and hence interest under section 234A is chargeable for the period commencing from the date immediately following the due date and ending with the date of completion of the assessment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this case, interest under section 234A has been correctly charged from the due date as per provisions of sections 234(1) and 234A(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.'<p style="text-align: justify;">4. The grounds of cross objection, as set out in the memorandum of cross objection filed by the assessee, are as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in directing the assessing officer to allow deduction under section 10(14)(i) of 50 per cent in respect of allowances received by the respondent while on international duty subject to maximum of Rs. 50,000 by ignoring the fact that the entire allowances received are exempt under section 10(14)(i) read with rules and notifications thereon.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in restricting the deduction as above especially in the light of the decision of Honble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Capt. V.K. Verma (ITA No. 5875/Delhi/96) in which the Honble Members in their order dated 24-8-2001 stated that the applicability of provisions of section 10(14)(i) was not examined by the Honble Members of ITAT, Delhi while deciding the case of Capt. Harminder Singh.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in not appreciating the fact that once the Honble ITAT, Mumbai has given directions to examine the deduction of various allowances under section 10(14)(i) in the case of Capt. V.K. Verma and the department has accordingly allowed part of the allowance as deduction under section 10(14)(i) read with rules and notifications thereon, there was no room for restricting the deduction which should be allowed in full.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in restricting the deduction as above without appreciating the fact that even under the amended provisions the exemption is allowable to the extent the same were used for the purpose for which the same were granted and the amendment did not vest the assessing officer powers to call for details of factual expenditure.'<p style="text-align: justify;">5. A materially identical issue came up for consideration before a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Capt. K.P. Singh, and vice versa. In the said case, the Tribunal has, inter alia, has held that in the light of the subsequent judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Capt. V.K. Verma v. Asstt. CIT and vice versa. In the said case, we have, inter alia, observed as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'2. The factual matrix giving rise to this litigation before us is like this. The assessee before us is a commercial pilot working for Air India Limited. On 30-6-1997, the assessee filed his income-tax return for the assessment year 1997-98 declaring income of Rs. 29,45,670. This return was processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Act, and the income so returned by the assessee was duly accepted. Subsequently, however, the assessing officer noticed that the assessee had claimed a deduction of Rs. 3,82,184 under section 10(14) and the same was not considered by the employer at the time of deducting tax at source. In other words, this claim of deduction of Rs. 3,82,184 was over and above the exemption granted by the employer, while estimating income chargeable to tax, for the purpose of computing tax deduction at source. It was in this backdrop that the case of the assessee was reopened and the assessee was called upon to substantiate the claim of exemption of Rs. 3,82,184. During the course of the ensuing assessment proceedings, the assessing officer took note of assessees contention that the employer only provides for hotel and breakfast, during assessees stay abroad, and rest of the expenses are to be borne out of the allowances granted by the employer. It was also noted that several allowances have been merged into a consolidated flying allowance, and thus, a portion of the allowance so paid everyday represents daily allowance for meals and other expenses incurred by the assessee on account of absence from normal place of duty. The Assessing Officer was, however, of the view that in the light of the Tribunals judgment in the case of Capt. Harminder Singh v. Income-tax Officer (62 ITD 78 Delhi) and in the light of notification numbers SO 144(E), dated 21-2-1989 and SO 487(E), dated 1-7-1992, exemption has to be allowed under section 10(14)(ii) and up to the extent of Rs. 3,000 per month. Accordingly, the assessing officer restricted the exemption, to the extent of Rs. 30,000, though it should have been, even as per this line of reasoning, Rs. 36,000 computed by taking Rs. 3,000 per month under section 10(14)(ii). Exemption was declined on the balance amount, and the income was thus assessed at Rs. 32,97,850. Aggrieved by the stand so taken by the assessing officer, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) took the view that so far as the allowances in respect of flights in India is concerned, the assessing officer was in deed justified in holding that the exemption is to be granted under section 10(14)(ii) and is to restricted to Rs. 3,000 per month. However, as regards the exemption in respect of the same allowances, so far as international flights are concerned, the Commissioner (Appeals) was of the view that the provisions of section 10(14)(i) will come into play. In coming to this conclusion, the Commissioner (Appeals) was also guided by observations made by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of Capt. V.K. Verma v. ITO and vice versa (ITA No. 5876/Delhi/96 and ITA No. 1493/Delhi/97). The Commissioner (Appeals) thereafter proceeded to observe as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Since section 140(14)(ii) read with rule 2BB covers only the situation where the allowances are received in India, therefore, the allowances received for flights operated outside India are to be brought with the scope of section 10(14)(1) of the Income-Tax Act. The said section has not prescribed any limit and was further limited the deduction to the extent such allowances are actually incurred for the purpose. Therefore, I hold that the appellant is entitled to relief under section 10(14)(i) of the Income-Tax Act and the expenses claimed by the appellant should have been incurred abroad and will have to be allowed under section 10(14)(i) of the Income-Tax Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Having so upheld the contention of the assessee in principle, however, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the assessee has not been able to furnish the copies of bills and vouchers for the actual expenses incurred abroad on lunch, dinner and other daily expenses. As to assessees contention that it was not possible to keep meticulous record of all such expenditure, the Commissioner (Appeals) added that 'I am unable to agree with the contention of the appellant for the simple reason that the expenditure has been claimed by the appellant on actual basis and therefore it is the duty of the appellant to prove the expenditure by leading necessary evidence'. A copy of dinner bill showing expenditure of US $ 40 on a single dinner was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that it did not pertain to the relevant previous year. The Commissioner (Appeals) then concluded that in the absence of any other evidence of actual expenditure, the assessee should be entitled deduction to the extent of 50 per cent of allowances received, or Rs. 50,000 whichever is less. In the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), thus, it has been held that the allowances are exempt under section 10(14)(1) of the Act, but, in the absence of evidence of actual expenditure, the CIT(A) has restricted the exemption to 50 per cent of the allowances granted to the assessee, or Rs. 50,000 - whichever is less. None of the parties is satisfied with this order. Revenue is aggrieved of CIT(A)s 'Allowing the allowances for flights received for flights abroad, operated outside India, under section 10(14)(i) on estimate basis for want of proof of expenses actually incurred which was not at all considered at the time of original assessment by the assessing officer'. Assessees grievance, on the other hand, is that his claim for exemption should be allowed in entirety which he has claimed at the rate of US Dollars 75 per day when he goes on duties outside India, and at the rate of Rs. 600 per day when he is outside his base in India.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We have heard the rival contentions, perused material on record any duly considered factual matrix of the case as also the applicable legal position.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. One of the documents sighted before us, during the course of this hearing, was a revision order under section 264 dated 30-5-2003 in the case of Capt. U.A. Joglekar, passed by the very Commissioner of Income-Tax who has signed the authorisation memo dated 2-7-2003 for filing of this appeal before us. In this revision order, the Commissioner has, inter alia, observed as follows :.The assessee has, in this case, moved a petition under section 264 for the assessment year 1994-95 with regard to claim of exemption under section 10(14)(1) of the Income-tax Act. It was contended that this claim has not been allowed by the assessing officer in the course of the assessment. The assessees claim relates to the exemption under section 10(14)(i) read with notification made therein in respect of various allowances received while operating international flights. These allowances are received in local currency at the foreign station and, therefore, covered by the provisions of section 10(14)(1) and notification issued thereunder. Clause (b) of relevant Notification No. SO 143(E), dated 21-2-1989 reads as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'any allowance, whether granted on tour or for the period of journey in connection with transfer, to meet the ordinary daily charges incurred by an employee on account of absence from its normal place of duty'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">As per this notification, while deliberating on this issue, concurring with the view of my predecessor in a similar order... in the case of Ms. Shailaja Ramamurthy, I am of the opinion that the allowances paid outside the country, to the employees of Indian Airlines are within the scope of section 10(14)(1) and accordingly, in the absence of the evidence, 50 per cent of the expenditure so incurred should be allowed as deduction, limited to Rs. 50,000....<p style="text-align: justify;">6. The revision order dated 24-5-2002 passed by his predecessor, which has been referred to and concurred with in this order, is also relevant in this context. The said order reads as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The assessee has, in this case, moved a petition under section 264 for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 with regard to claim of exemption under section 10(14)(1) of the Income-Tax Act. It was contended that this claim has not been allowed by the assessing officer in the course of assessments. A reference in this connection was made by the authorised representative earlier on seeking clarification pertaining to the claim under section 10(14)(1). The Commissioner (Appeals) while deliberating on this issue, had also opined that the allowances paid outside the country to the employees of Indian Airlines are within scope of section 10(14)(i). Accordingly, an instruction of advisory nature was issued to the assessing officers stating that in the absence of evidence, 50 per cent of the expenditure so incurred should be allowed limited to Rs. 50,000. It would be significant to state that assessing officers in New Delhi have allowed the claim by restricting it to 60 per cent of the foreign allowance. Relevant portion of my instruction dated 14-3-2002 is cited below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I am of the opinion that in the cases pertaining to this charge, we may allow expenditure of 50 per cent which appears to be reasonable. This will only be with regard to the allowance paid on food, beverage, telephone and transportation. The claim of exemption will not be applicable for any other allowances which cannot be construed as f falling within the ambit of section 10(14)(i) as these are not paid to meet ordinary daily charges incurred by the employee on account of absence from his normal place of duty. This expenditure should, however, be limited to Rs. 50,000 only.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Further the assessing officers should substitute the allowance incorporated in the assessment order with the allowances indicated by Indian Airlines authorities, if required, and should also substitute salary as per Form No. 16 as against the estimated salary.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Accordingly, the assessing officer is directed to allow the assessees claim under section 10(14)(1) as per the above instruction.<p style="text-align: justify;">7. It is thus clear that the revenue itself has taken a stand that so far as international flights are concerned, the provisions of exemption under section 10(14)(i) are applicable, and that the assessee-pilot is entitled to exemption under section 10(14)(i) in respect of the same. The very Commissioner who challenges the impugned order, passed by the CIT(A) holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 10(14)(1) in respect of allowances received for international flights, has himself allowed the same exemption. It is difficult to reconcile between Commissioners giving the relief of exemption under section 10(14)(i), by exercising his revision powers under section 264, and the same Commissioners authorising filing of an appeal against an Appellate Commissioner granting absolutely identical relief by way of an appellate order.<p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the case of Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal : [2001]249ITR219(SC) , Honble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider whether it is open to revenue to accept a judgment in the case of one assessee, and appeal, against the identical judgment in the case of another. Their Lordships held that such a differential treatment on the same set of facts was not permissible in law, and observed that, 'It is not open to revenue to accept the judgment in the case of the assessee in that case and challenge its correctness in the case of another assessee, without just cause.' The same view was reiterated by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Berger Paints India Limited v. CIT : [2004]266ITR99(SC) , and followed by the Honble Delhi High Court in the cases of CWT v. RKKR Industries Private Limited 198 CTR 567 and CIT v. Neo Poly Pack Pvt. Ltd. : [2000]245ITR492(Delhi) . When it is not possible for the revenue to challenge an order of the appellate authority in one case and when it has accepted identical order of the appellate authority in another case, it cannot at all be open to the revenue to challenge the order of the appellate authority on an issue on which relief has been given by Commissioner himself, in other cases, by way of exercising revision jurisdiction in other cases. For this reason alone, the grievance raised by the revenue is not maintainable in law and deserves to be rejected in limine.<p style="text-align: justify;">9. There are, however, other reasons for rejecting revenues grievance on merits as well.<p style="text-align: justify;">10. It is important to appreciate that the sole and immediate reason of rejecting assessees claim for exemption under section 10(14)(1) is revenues reliance on applicability of section 10(14)(ii) read with Notification Nos. SO 144(E), dated 21-2-1989 and SO 487(E), dated 1-7-1992, as also Tribunals judgment in the case of Capt. Harminder Singh (supra). The fact that assessing officer has, without any application of mind, blindly followed Tribunals judgment in the case of Capt. Harminder Singh (supra), is also evident from assessing officers allowing exemption under section 10(14)(ii) only to the extent of Rs. 30,000 for the year, whereas, even as per applicable limit for the relevant previous year, that is at the rate of Rs. 3,000 the correct figure should have been Rs. 36,000. The apparent reason is that in Capt. Harminder Singhs case (supra), Tribunal had allowed exemption to the extent of Rs. 30,000 but then the assessment year involved in that case was 1993-94, and for the relevant previous year, the applicable limit was Rs. 1,000 per month till June, and for the rest of nine months the applicable limit was enhanced to Rs. 3,000 per month. That is how, i.e. Rs. 1,000 multiplied with 3 plus Rs. 3,000 multiplied with 9, the figure of Rs. 30,000 applied for the assessment year 1993-94. Yet, the Assessing Officer has adopted the same for the assessment year 1997-98 also. As for the reliance on notification numbers SO 144(E), dated 21-2-1989 and SO 487(E), dated 1-7-1992, these notifications ceased to be relevant after amendment of section 10(14) with effect from 1-7-1995. These things, as we pointed out, only show-how thoughtlessly the impugned assessment order is passed. It is also important to bear in mind the fact that in Capt. Harminder Singhs case (supra), the assessee was working on domestic sectors and it was for this reason that the Tribunal came to the conclusion that old notification SO 144(E), as it was then in force, applied. This notification admittedly applies to 'whole of India' only, and not beyond that. The exemption under section 10(14)(ii) is thus, even as per the revenue, available only in India and not outside India. In the present case, the exemption under section 10(14)(1) has been declined only on the ground that exemption under section 10(14)(ii) is available. Therefore, even going by the logic of the assessing officer, exemption under section 10(14)(i) cannot be declined because, assessee, while flying on international sectors, cannot be allowed exemption under section 10(14)(ii). This stand, even after taking note of Tribunals decision in the case of Capt. Harminder Singh (supra), has not only been approved by another Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Capt. V.K. Verma (supra) but has also been followed by the Commissioner in exercise of his revision jurisdiction by issuing orders under section 264 and in exercise of his supervisory jurisdiction by issuing administrative instructions. The very foundation on revenues arguments in support of non-applicability of section 10(14)(i) is thus devoid of any legally sustainable basis.<p style="text-align: justify;">11. The assessee, though working for an international carrier, operates on the domestic flights. The question then arises whether exemption under section 10(14)(i) is available in respect of the same allowances when the assessee has to stay in a place, outside his place of posting, in India. This takes us to an even more fundamental question and that is to what extent applicability of exemption under section 10(14)(ii) as was upheld by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Capt. Harminder Singh (supra) is now good in law, particularly after Tribunals subsequent order in the case of Capt. V.K. Verma (supra) and in the light of the stand being taken by the assessing officers and the Administrative Commissioners in the cases of the pilots. It is interesting to note that the Tribunal in Capt. V.K. Vermas case (supra), whose employer was the same as of Capt. Harminder Singh, and the revenue authorities have consistently held that to the extent the allowances are not covered by section 10(14)(ii), the same are to be treated as subject-matter of exemption under section 10(14)(i). In Capt. Vermas case (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, vide order dated 22-8-2001, observed that :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On careful perusal of the record, we find force in the contentions of the assessee that the facts of the impugned case are not identical to that of Harminder Singhs case (supra). As such the principle laid down in that case is not strictly applicable to the instant case. It is also obvious from Tribunals order in Harminder Singhs case that Tribunal did not have occasion to examine the issue of exemption of allowance under section 10(14)(i) of the Act, if the assessee is on flying duty abroad. Though the assessee has emphatically argued that its claims are covered under section 10(14)(i), we are of the view that since lower authorities have not applied their mind to this aspect, this matter should go back to the assessing officer for its reexamination in the light of assessees contentions and various notifications of the Board and relevant provisions of law. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the matter to the file of the assessing officer for re-examination in the terms indicated above.<p style="text-align: justify;">12. This order has been accepted by the revenue. In fact, when the matter was thus restored to the file of the assessing officer, the assessing officer finalized the assessment on 20-2-2002, by observing, inter alia, as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">As per the directions of the ITAT, the case was taken up for hearing. The counsel of the assessee has filed written submissions in this regard. He has also filed a copy of the order dated 19-12-2001 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) XXVII, Mumbai in the case of Neeta Kulkarni in Appeal No. CIT, XXVII/ITO, Wd 11(3)/96/2001-02. It was contended by the AR that the CIT (Appeals), in the above order, has held that the allowances paid while operating international flights are covered by exemption under section 10(14)(i) read with Notification No. SO 143(E), dated 28-2-1989 subject to verification of expenses actually incurred by the assessee while operating international flights.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The assessees AR has also filed a detailed note stating that Indian Airlines, employer, provides accommodation at foreign stations to the assessee on bread and breakfast basis. These are paid in local currency at foreign stations to meet out other expenditure on meals, refreshments, tea, transportation, telephone and other incidental expenses. It was claimed that these foreign allowances are in the nature of reimbursements and have been spent while performing official duties. The AR has further relied upon instruction No. 1107, dated 5-10-1977 and letter dated 30-3-1990 issued by the CBDT in support of his contention that these allowances are exempt under section 10(14)(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I have considered the submissions of the AR and details filed by him. I have also gone through the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai referred to above. Though the assessee has claimed that the allowances received by him have been spent for the purpose for which it were given, the assessee could not provide any supporting material /vouchers to substantiate his claim in this regard. Keeping in view the nature of expenditure to be incurred at foreign station, facilities provided by the employer and the amount of foreign allowance paid to the assessee I consider it reasonable to take 60 per cent of the foreign allowances as having been actually incurred and allow exemption under section 10(14)(i) read with Notification No. SO 143(E) .......</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is thus clear that even as per the revenue authorities, the claim of exemption is allowable under section 10(14)(1) though only to the extent of 60 per cent in respect of allowances granted for the purpose of visits abroad in connection with the flying duties. The nature of allowances is admittedly the same for domestic and international visits, only the quantum of allowance and currency of allowance varies. That is a significant departure from revenues stand that the allowances cannot be said to be in the nature of allowances eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(1) at all. The revenue having taken the stand that the nature of allowances is such that it can be partly exempted under section 10(14)(1) when assessee visits abroad and when the exemption under section 10(14)(ii) is, therefore, unavailable, it cannot be open to revenue to now argue that provisions of section 10(14)(i) cannot be attracted at all in respect of the identical allowances for visiting Indian stations. To that extent, the principle laid down by the Tribunal in Capt. Harminder Singhs case (supra) has been modified by the Tribunal in the subsequent decisions, such as in the case of Capt. V.K. Verma (supra), and even by the revenue authorities in the assessments of other assessees. Once the revenue itself accepts that the nature of allowances is covered by section 10(14)(i) read with Notification No. S.O. 143(E), though in connection with flights abroad, the only surviving reason for rejection of claim under section 10(14)(i) in respect of domestic allowances is specific provision of section 10(14)(ii) governing the exemption in respect of domestic allowances.<p style="text-align: justify;">13. A plain reading of the revision orders passed under section 264 and administrative instructions issued by the Administrative Commission also shows that to the extent exemption under section 10(14)(ii) is not available in respect of the allowances, the field officers have considered the same allowances in respect of 'food, beverage, telephone and transportation', as eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(i). The only reason for rejecting the exemption under section 10(14)(1) thus is availability of exemption under section 10(14)(ii) in respect of those allowances. This surviving reason for rejection of claim of exemption under section 10(14)(1), however, rests on the fallacious assumption that the provisions of section 10(14)(i) and section 10(14)(ii) do not operate in mutually exclusive fields.<p style="text-align: justify;">14. We consider it necessary to reproduce the provisions of section 10(14) which are as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In computing the total income of a previous year of any person, any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not be included :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(14)	**		**		**		**		**</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) any such special allowance or benefit, not being in the nature of a perquisite with the meanings of clause (2) of section 17, specifically granted to meet expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in the performance of duties of an office or employment of profit, as may be prescribed, to the extent to which such expenses are actually incurred for that purpose;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) any such allowance granted to the assessee either to meet his personal expenses at the place where duties of his office or employment of profit are ordinarily performed by him or at the place where he ordinarily resides, or to compensate him for the increased cost of living as may be prescribed and to the extent may be prescribed :<p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that nothing in sub-clause (ii) shall apply to any allowance in the nature of personal allowance granted to him for performing duties of a special nature relating to his office unless such allowance is related to his place of posting or residence.<p style="text-align: justify;">15. We also consider it appropriate to reproduce the part of Rule 2BB under which the allowances paid for going abroad in connection with flying duties are exempted by the revenue and under which the allowances paid for going to other places inside India are exempted by the revenue :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Rule 2BB :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) For the purpose of clause (i) of sub section 14 of section 10, prescribed allowances, by whatever name called, shall be following :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) any allowance, whether granted on tour or for the period of journey in connection with transfer, to meet the ordinary daily charges incurred by an employee on account of absence from normal place of duty;<p style="text-align: justify;">(2) For the purpose of clause (ii) of sub-section (14) of section 10, prescribed allowances, by whatever name called, and the extent thereof, shall be following, namely,<p style="text-align: justify;">(i)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sl.No.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Name of the allowance</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Any allowance granted to an employee working in any transport system, to meet his personal expenditure during his duty performed in the course of running of such transport, from one place to another place, provided such employee is not in receipt of daily allowance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Place at which allowance is exempt </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Extent to which allowance is exempt</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Whole of India upto a</p><p style="text-align: justify;">70% of the allowance maximum of Rs. 3,000 per month<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. An analysis of section 10(14)(1) read with Rule 2BB(1)(b) indicates that essential ingredients of an allowance eligible for exemption under that section are as follow :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">the allowance or benefit should be specifically granted to meet expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in connection with the duties of an office or employment of profit;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">the allowance or benefit should not be in the nature of a perquisite as defined under section 17(2) of the Act;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">the exemption of allowance is restricted to the extent to which such expenses are actually incurred for that purpose;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">the allowance should be to meet ordinary daily charges on account of absence from normal place of duty.<p style="text-align: justify;">17. As for the nature of allowance which are exempt under section 10(14)(ii), in terms of plain words of the statutory provisions under that section, the following conditions are required to be satisfied :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">the allowance should be granted to meet personal expenses of the assessee or to compensate him for the increased cost of living;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">in case the allowance is granted to meet personal expenses of the assessee, the allowance should be to meet his personal expenses at</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) at the place where the duties of office or employment of profit are ordinarily performed; or</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) at the place where the assessee normally resides.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Once the above conditions, as laid down under the statute are satisfied, the exemption is available in respect of the allowance granted to an assessee working in any transport system and to meet personal expenses of such assessee during the course of running of such transport from one place to another;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">the assessee should not be in receipt of a daily allowance; and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">the exemption of allowance is to the extent the allowance is prescribed at 70 per cent of the allowance up to a maximum of Rs. 3,000 per month so far as year before us is concerned.<p style="text-align: justify;">18. It is thus clear that so far as eligibility for exemption under section 10(14)(i) read with Rule 2BB(1)(b) is concerned, it has nothing to do with the place which assessee is to visit in the course of duties. The exemption under this section cannot be declined on the ground that the assessee was to visit places outside his normal place of duty in India, and not abroad. Whether an assessee is in India or is outside India, as long as allowance is granted to meet ordinary daily charges on account of absence from normal place of duty, the same is eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(1) read with Rule 2BB(1)(b)-of course subject to actual use condition but that is not relevant in the present context. Therefore, the normal interpretation of this provision, as accepted by the revenue, is that if an employee is posted in Mumbai and he travels to, say, London, the allowance that the assessee is granted to meet his ordinary daily charges, such as say on meals, beverages, refreshments, toiletries etc. on account of his absence from Mumbai, the same is eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(1) read with Rule 2BB(1)(b). The revenue also, therefore, accepts that allowances are specifically granted to meet expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in connection with the duties of an office, and are not in the nature of perquisite under section 17(2) of the Act. because without satisfying these conditions, the exemption under section 10(14)(i) could not have been granted at all in respect of the allowances. However, it is also important to appreciate that rule 2BB(1)(b) does not make a distinction between domestic destinations and foreign destinations. Therefore, once the revenue accepts that the allowances are granted to meet ordinary daily charges on account of absence from normal place of duty when assessee goes on flying duties abroad, it cannot be open to revenue to contend that so far as allowances to visit domestic destinations are concerned, the eligibility of exemption under section 10(14)(i) is not available. The exemption under section 10(14)(i) has, however, been denied apparently on the ground that the exemption under section 10(14)(ii) read with Rule 2BB(2)(iv) is available in respect of such allowances.<p style="text-align: justify;">19. Section 10(14)(ii) read with Rule 2BB(2)(iv), on the other hand, deals with the allowances which are granted to meet (a) increased cost of living; or to meet (b) personal expenses at the place where duties of office are performed or where the assessee ordinarily resides. An allowance can either be for personal expenses or for official expenses; it cannot be for official expenses as also for personal expenses at the same time. Therefore, once it is stand of the revenue that the allowances are granted to 'meet expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in connection with the duties of an office' since exemption under section 10(14)(i) read with Rule 2BB(1)(b) has been granted in respect of such allowances by the assessing officer himself and by the Commissioner, by way of revision orders under section 264, in respect of allowances in connection with flying duties aboard, merely because the places covered by the assessee in some of such visits are inside India, it cannot be said that the allowances are not granted to 'meet expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in connection with the duties of an office'. The purpose of the allowances remains in the same and if destination that the assessee visits makes any difference to the allowances, such difference is only in terms of quantum of allowance and the currency in which it is paid. These factors, by any stretch of logic, cannot have any bearing on the eligibility for exemption under section 10(14)(i). The very basis of denying exemption under section 10(14)(i), therefore, is no longer sustainable in law.<p style="text-align: justify;">20. When the allowances are admittedly granted for wholly, necessarily and exclusively for official purposes, there cannot be any occasion to invoke section 10(14)(ii) the scope of which is confined to expenses to meet increased cost of living or to meet personal expenses at the place where duties of office are performed or where the assessee resides. The expression place where the duties of his office or employment of profit are performed appearing in section 10(14)(ii) of the Act refers to a geographical location, ie. city, State, or the region, where the employee is posted, as is also evident from column 3 of Rule 2BB(2) which refers to geographical locations such as cities, States, altitude of the place where an employee is posted, and sea distance from Indian land, i.e., continental shelf and exclusive economic zone, where the assessee is posted in offshore installations. Therefore, it is the place of posting, which can be a geographical location in the present context, which is required to be treated as the place where duties of office are to be performed. The question of expenses, to meet which the allowances are given, becomes relevant only when the pilot steps out of the aircraft and stays in a place other than the place of his posting, and, therefore, these expenses cannot be said to be incurred during the performance of the duties or during the course of taking an aircraft from one place to another. A commercial pilot, in the course of performance of his duties, has to stay at various places not for performance of duties but in connection with performance of his duties. For example, if a Mumbai based commercial pilot has to stay in New Delhi overnight before he resumes or starts his flying duties on flights originating from there, he is to be treated as on tour to New Delhi in connection with his duties of office. The duties of his office include flying an aircraft, and he flies the aircraft at New Delhi also, but then his overnight stay in New Delhi cannot be said to be for flying an aircraft but can only be in connection with flying an aircraft. The allowances granted to the assessee are not for being in New Delhi while flying the aircraft but for staying in New Delhi to enable him to fly from New Delhi. Therefore, the allowances cannot be said to be for the purposes of meeting personal expenses at the place where duties of office are performed. It also not the revenues case that the allowances are granted to meet personal expenses where the assessee normally resides, because the question of these allowances comes into play only when the assessee goes out of the place where he normally resides. The allowances cannot, therefore, be said to have been granted for the purpose of meeting personal expenses of the place where the assessee resides or where the duties of office are performed. As for an allowance to meet increased cost of living, it can only refer to an allowance to supplement the cost of living and not to an allowance which is to meet the costs of ordinary daily charges on account from normal place of duty. The cost of living, in any event, only relevant for the place of the duties are normally performed, and not of the places where a person has to go in connection with performance of his duties. A place of duty, as we have discussed above, refers to a geographical location and, therefore, not an aircraft which cannot be stationary and has to move from place to place. It is also not in dispute that a daily allowance, though computed at hourly rate, is being paid to the assessee, and, for this reason also, rule 2BB(2)(iv) has no application in the cases where daily allowance is paid. Last few words of this entry are 'provided such employee is not in receipt of daily allowance'. For all these reasons, the provisions of section 10(14)(ii) and also of Rule 2BB(2)(iv) are not applicable on the facts of this case.<p style="text-align: justify;">21. The line of distinction between an allowance to meet expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively for the performance of duties, though prima facie of a personal nature, and an allowance to meet personal expenses simplicitor is very significant. Take for example, and allowance to meet the costs of transfer, packing of transportation of personal effects on transfer of an employee. Such an allowance, on the face of it, appears to be an allowance to meet personal expenses of an employee but since his transfer is in connection with the duties of an office, the same is treated as having been granted to meet the expenses to meet expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in connection with the duties of an office and an allowance granted to meet the cost of travel on tour or transfer' appearing in Rule 2BB(1)(a) and Explanation to the said Rule categorically so clarifies. In contrast to this example, let us take the case of Remote Locality Allowance paid to an employee who is posted in Nicobar Island. This allowance is covered by Rule 2BB(2)(2) to the extent of Rs. 1,300 per month, but there is no condition attached about the use of this allowance. Once an employee is posted in Nicobar Island, such a posting of the employee, by itself, entitles him the allowance and this is to meet the personal expenses of the employee. This allowance is therefore to meet personal expenses at the place of posting, as is the mandate of section 10(14)(ii). However, when the same employee travels back to mainland in connection with his duties and he gets and allowance to meet his ordinary daily charges on account of absence from normal place of duty, he will be entitled to exemption under section 10(14)(1) in respect of such allowances. In both the situations, allowance is to meet the personal expenses because, after all, ordinary daily charges are also personal expenses in nature but then personal expenses at the place of duty and personal expenses, necessitated by same is the case employee travels outside the place where he is posted and he gets an allowance to meet the costs of boarding and lodging, which is undoubtedly a personal expense in nature, the allowance so granted is treated as and to meet the ordinary daily charges incurred by an employee on account of absence from normal place of duty and thus 'wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in connection with the duties of an office or employment of profit'. Therefore, an allowance granted to a commercial pilot to meet his cost of meals, beverages, telephone and laundry etc. cannot be said to be for the purpose of meeting the increased cost of living as it is to meet the costs of ordinary daily charges on account of absence from normal place of duty. It is thus clear that the provisions of section 10(14)(ii) read with Rule 2BB(2)(iv) have no application in case the allowances are found to be covered by the provisions of section 10(14)(i) read with Rule 2BB(1)(b), and vice versa. These two sections operate in mutually exclusive are as inasmuch as application of one of the section is to the exclusion of the other section. In other words, revenue having accepted the allowances granted to the assessee are covered by section 10(14)(1), there is no room to invoke the provisions of section 10(14)(ii). It is materially different from the case of Capt. Harminder Singh (supra) wherein there was a categorical finding by the Tribunal that the allowances in question are not covered by the provisions of section 10(14)(1) read with Notification No. S.O. 143(E) which is in pari materia with Rule 2BB(1)(a) and (b), but that is no longer the case as revenue itself has allowed exemption under section 10(14)(i) read with Rule 2BB(1)(b) in respect of identical allowances. To that extent, the legal position, on the facts of the case before us and in the light of developments which have been taken note of hereinabove, is that the exemption under section 10(14)(1) is also available for allowances granted to the assessee in respect of tours of the assessee to domestic destinations as well, and that section 10(14)(ii) cannot be said to have any application in respect of such allowances.<p style="text-align: justify;">22. For the reasons set out above, we are of the considered view that, in principle, provisions of section 10(14)(1) will apply to the allowances received by the assessee for tours to places inside as also outside India, and the assessee will, accordingly, be eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(1) read with Rule 2BB(1)(b) in respect of such allowances.<p style="text-align: justify;">23. The next question then arises as to what is the extent to which exemption of allowances, in the absence of any evidence for actual use of allowance for the purpose for which such allowances are granted, can be granted under section 10(14)(1). Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed exemption to the extent of 50 per cent of allowances or Rs. 50,000, whichever is lower. It is difficult to comprehend as to how the quantum of allowance can determine the amount actually spent by the employee; in fact, it is the other way round. It is understandable that actual expenditure by the employees influences the quantum of allowance fixed by the employer, but not vice versa. The ceiling of exemption to the extent of 50 per cent of allowances is, therefore, devoid of any rationale. Similarly, the monetary ceiling of Rs. 50,000 per annum on the exemption of allowances under section 10(14)(i) is even more unfounded. That would be equating expenditure incurred by an employee who is on tour for, say, 180 days with someone who has been on tour for, say, 8 days. The basis for adopting this figure of Rs. 50,000 is also far from clear, and appears to be arbitrary. The quantum of exemption of allowances, as decided by the Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, does not meet our approval.<p style="text-align: justify;">24. The issue regarding extent to which exemption can be granted in the absence of evidence of actual expenditure, also came up before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of one Madanlal Mohanlal Narang, an employee of the shipping Corporation of India. In the said order dated 2 1 st April, 2006, reported as Madanlal Mohanlal Narang v. Assn. CIT (101 TTJ 1005), the Tribunal, inter ali,4 observed as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We find that the basic reason of declining the exemption claimed by the assessee is that the authorities below are not satisfied about evidence of the assessee having actually spent the amount allowance for the purposes for which the same were granted. A lot of emphasis is laid on the fact that section 10(14)(1) provides any allowance for the purpose of meeting expenses wholly necessarily and exclusively incurred for the purpose of official duties, as may be prescribed, but the exemption is available only to the extent 'to the which such expenses are actually incurred for that purposes'. The assessing officer has disallowed the exemption only on the basis that there were insufficient proof for the expenses having been actually incurred. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has also held that the appellant has not produced evidence regarding actual use of the allowances for the purpose for which the same were granted. Unlike the requirements of section 10(14)(ii) which provide for exemption of a prescribed allowance to the extent prescribed, under section 10(14)(i) exemption is indeed confined to the extent to which an exempt allowance is actually spent for the purposes for which such allowance is granted. In other words, actual use of an allowance is one of the conditions precedent for exemption under section 10(14)(1). This is in sharp contrast with the exemption provisions of section 10(14)(ii) under which even the quantum of exemption is to be prescribed by the Rules. Having taken note of this significant distinction, however, we much also appreciate the background in which this actual use condition was brought in the statute and true connotations thereof in the context of section 10(14)(i).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The expression to the extent to which such expenses are actually incurred, as finds place in section 10(14)(1), is not new to the Income-tax Act. It was first introduced, with effect from 1-4-1955, in section 4(3)(vi) of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922 which dealt with the exemption of allowances to the salaried employees. This amendment was made in the backdrop of Honble Bombay High Courts judgment in the case of Tejaji Frasaram Kharwalla v. CIT : [1948]16ITR260(Bom) wherein Their Lordships had held that exemption under section 4(3)(vi) was available even if portion of the allowance was not consumed and stood as surplus in the hands of the employees. Subsequently, though this decision was reversed by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Tejaji Frasaram Kharwalla : [1968]67ITR95(SC) , not before section 4(3)(vi) was amended, with effect from 1-4-1955, by Finance Act, 1955. This amendment, it appears, resulted in considerable apprehension amongst the salaried employees as to how can they be expected to maintain meticulous details and evidence of expenditure incurred by them for the actual usage of allowance. To allay these apprehensions, the Central Board of Direct Taxes on 1-8-1955, issued a circular which is reproduced below for ready reference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Special allowance or benefit being reasonable and not disproportionately high - No details of expenses actually incurred need be asked for the purpose of granting exemption under section 4(3)(vi) of 1922 Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The exemption under section 4(3)(vi) in respect of any special allowance or benefit will be available from the assessment year 1955-56 only to the extent of the sanctioned amounts. Generally speaking, where the specific allowance are reasonable with reference to the nature of the duties performed by the assessee and are not disproportionately high compared to the salary received by him, not attempt will ordinarily be made to call for details of the expenses actually incurred by him with a view to disentitling him to some extent from the exemption. An enquiry will, of course, be justified and will be made in cases where the allowances are prima facia unreasonably high.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Source: Direct Taxes Circulars</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Volume 1 - 1994 Edition - Page 1.130</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is, therefore, clear that even as the provisions were amended so as to allow the exemption of allowance only to the extent the allowances were used for the purposes for which the same were granted, even in this amendment did not vest the assessing officers powers to call for details of actual expenditure unless, generally speaking, the allowances are unreasonably high vis-a-vis salaries of the assessee or with reference to the nature of duties performed by the assessees.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The above circular was undoubtedly issued under the Income Tax Act, 1922 but then all the circulars issued under section 1922 Act, do not cease to hold good in law. Section 297(2)(k) specifically provides that notwithstanding the repeal of Income Tax Act, 1922, amongst other things, any instructions issued under any provisions of the repealed Act shall, so far as not inconsistent with the corresponding provisions of Income-Tax Act, 1961, deemed to have been issued under the corresponding provisions of the new Act, and shall continue to remain in force accordingly. In other words, to the extent the legal provisions of 1922 Act and 1961 Act are in pari materia, circulars and instructions issued under the 1922 Act will also hold good. The circular in view of the provisions of section 297(2)(k) it still holds good and continued to be in force. The expression used i.e., to the extent to which such expenses are actually incurred being absolutely identical in both the Acts, the provisions of the above circular, in our humble understanding, apply under the 1961 Act as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. in the light of the aforesaid circular it is not open to the revenue to call for the details of expenses actually incurred unless the specific allowance are disproportionately high compared to the salary received by him or unreasonable with reference to the nature of the duties performed by the assessee. It is, however, not the case of the revenue that the allowance granted to the assessee was unreasonable or excessive having regard to the salary of the assessee or the legitimate minimum requirement for the purpose for which the allowances were granted. We have also noted that the quantum of these allowances is prima facie reasonable vis-a-vis salary of the assessee and the purposes which the allowances were given....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is thus clear that unless the quantum of allowances in respect of which exemption under section 10(14)(i) is claimed is found to be excessive or unreasonable, there cannot be any occasion for the assessing officer to call for the actual evidence of expenditure.<p style="text-align: justify;">25. To demonstrate what can be considered reasonable allowance, learned counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to a copy of the circular # Q/FD/695/1/90, dated 28-3-1995 issued by the Government of India (Ministry of External Affairs) which sets out the rate at which a Government servant is entitled to daily allowance when he travels to various countries. The rate at which daily allowance is granted to the Government servants for some of the countries is as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Australia</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 75</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Austria</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 68</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Bahrain</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 51</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Canada</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 54</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Chaina</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 68</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Germany</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 75</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Hong Kong</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 75</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Ethiopia</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 50</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Indonesia</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 60</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Japan</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 75</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Kenya</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 50</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Korea</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 70</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Kuwait</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 74</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Malaysia</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 50</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Mauritius</p><p style="text-align: justify;">us $ 50</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Russian Federation</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 75</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Switzerland</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 58</p><p style="text-align: justify;">UAE</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 61</p><p style="text-align: justify;">UK</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 75</p><p style="text-align: justify;">USA</p><p style="text-align: justify;">US $ 75</p><p style="text-align: justify;">These daily allowances are over and above the hotel charges and local conveyance expenses which are allowed on actual expense basis in the approved list of hotels, but wherever breakfast is included in the hotel tariff, the daily allowance is reduced by 10 per cent. On the strength of this Government circular, learned counsel contends that the allowance at the rate of US $ 75 is reasonable. It is, therefore, argued that to the extent of US $ 75 per day, the allowance granted to the assessee can be treated as a daily allowance to meet ordinary daily charges on account of absence from normal place of duty.<p style="text-align: justify;">26. Learned Departmental Representative vehemently contends that even if the allowance is granted at the rates prescribed by the Government, a person getting such an allowance is under an obligation to maintain record about evidences of expenses having been actually incurred. In the absence of evidence of allowance having actually been spent, according to the learned Departmental Representative, exemption under section 10(14)(i) in respect of the same will not be admissible. That contention, for the reasons set out by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Madanlal Mohanlal Narang (supra), cannot be accepted. The allowances fixed by the Government of India cannot be said to excessive or unreasonable vis-a-vis salaries of the employees or the purposes for which the allowances are granted, and, therefore, it cannot be open to the assessing officer to demand evidence of actual expenditure in respect of such allowances or in respect of similar allowances, to the persons drawing comparable salaries, of the same quantum. Keeping in view of the nature of job in aviation sector, as also keeping in mind the fact that aviation crew is generally required to stay in premium five star hotels where costs are high, we are of the considered view that the daily allowance at the rates prescribed for the Government employees which ranges between US $ 50 to US $ 75 per day (minus 10 per cent for the breakfast which is provided to the assessee by the airline employer), to meet the costs of meals, beverages and other incidental expenses, cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable allowance. To that extent, we accept the contention of the assessee. We direct the assessing officer to accordingly grant exemption under section 10(14)(i) to the allowances, by adopting daily rates so fixed by the Government of India as the maximum permissible rate eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(i) without productions of evidence of actual expenditure, out of the consolidated flying allowances received by the assessee. In case, however, the allowance actually received by the assessee for a particular day is less than the daily allowances fixed by the Government of India, the exemption will be restricted to the actual allowance received by the assessee.<p style="text-align: justify;">27. In order that the above directions can be given effect by the assessing officer, the assessee shall provide for the details of stay abroad in connection with the performance of duties of his office, and compute the exempt portion of daily allowance at the rates specified in the Government circular referred to above. Upon furnishing of these details by the assessee, the assessing officer shall grant exemption under section 10(14)(i) in respect of the allowances in the terms indicated above.<p style="text-align: justify;">28. We now come to the quantum of allowance to be treated as exempt under section 10(14)(i) in respect of allowances granted to the assessee to meet ordinary daily charges during the period he is away from his base station but is in India.<p style="text-align: justify;">29. The assessee has contended that a sum of Rs, 600 per day in respect of the above are fair and reasonable. No material has been brought on record by any of the authorities below to establish, or even indicate, that this quantum of allowance is excessive or unreasonable. We agree with learned counsels contention that having regard to high prices of meals and other incidental expenses at the places the airline crew members are required to stay in, a sum of Rs. 600 per day is hardly enough to meet the costs of two meals. We, therefore, see no reasons to reject the claim of the assessee. We direct the assessing officer to accordingly grant exemption under section 10(14)(i) to the allowances, by adopting daily rates so fixed by the Government of India as the maximum permissible rate eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(i) without productions of evidence of actual expenditure, out of the consolidated flying allowances received by the assessee. In case, however, the allowance actually received by the assessee for a particular day of stay in India, outside the place of posting, is less than Rs. 600 per day, the exemption will be restricted to the amount of actual allowance received. In order that the above directions can be given effect by the assessing officer, the assessee shall provide for and substantiate the details of stay in India outside the place of posting, in connection with the performance of duties of his office and compute the exempt portion of daily allowance at the rate of Rs. 600 per day as discussed above. Upon furnishing of these details by the assessee, the assessing officer shall grant exemption under section 10(14)(i) in respect of the allowances in the terms indicated above.<p style="text-align: justify;">30. For the reasons set out above, we uphold the contentions of the assessee in the terms indicated above. The matter will, however, go back to the file of the assessing officer for the limited purposes of quantification of relief in terms of our observations in the foregoing paragraphs.'<p style="text-align: justify;">6. The only material difference in this case is that the quantum of allowances is fixed by the airlines, and therefore the assessee has claimed that the entire allowance is exempt under section 10(14). The Commissioner (Appeals) has, however, allowed the exemption under section 10(14)(i), to the extent of Rs. 50,000 or 50 per cent of the allowance whichever is less, so far as allowances paid for travelling outside India are concerned. As regards the allowances paid for travelling inside India are concerned, the Commissioner (Appeals), has upheld the exemption under section 10(14)(ii) read with Notification No. 144(E) (Item No. 4) up to the prescribed limit, i.e., Rs. 1,000 per month.<p style="text-align: justify;">7. As regards the exemption of allowances for travel outside India is concerned, as we have noted above, the Commissioner himself, in exercise of his powers under section 264 and also by issuing administrative instructions, has accepted that exemption under section 10(14)(1) is permissible in respect of the same. Once the Administrative Commissioner accepts the position regarding applicability of exemption under section 10(14)(1) read with Notification No. 143(E), or under corresponding rule under the Income-Tax Rules, for these allowances when assessee travels abroad in connection with the flying duties, it cannot be open to the revenue to take a stand that those very allowances cease to be of the nature as to be covered by section 10(14)(1) read with the Notification No. 143(E). The only reason of disallowance was the applicability of section 10(14)(ii) read with Notification No. 144(E), or the corresponding rule, but then, as revenue itself has accepted applicability of section 10(14)(1) in respect of allowances drawn for travelling abroad in connection with the flying duties, there cannot be any good reason to decline exemption under section 10(14)(1) in respect of allowances paid for travelling within India. Once exemption under section 10(14)(1) is available in respect of these allowances, the same allowances cannot be subject-matter of exemption under section 10(14)(ii) as well. In any event, as we have noted earlier, section 10(14)(1) and section 10(14)(ii) operate in mutually exclusive areas. In Capt. Harminder Singhs case (supra), it was not the revenues stand that these allowances, when an employee travels abroad, will be eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(1). In any case, for the detailed reasons set out in the case of Capt. K.P. Singh v. Asstt. CIT and vice versa, allowances eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(ii) and section 10(14)(i) are operate in mutually exclusive areas and once an allowance is accepted to be eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(1), for that reason alone, eligibility for exemption under section 10(14)(ii) cannot be available. In these circumstances, and particularly bearing in mind the fact that revenue itself has now accepted that exemption under section 10(14)(1) is to be given for the allowances in connection with visits abroad, are of the view that the exemption of these allowances is to be granted under section 10(14)(i) for travelling within India as well.<p style="text-align: justify;">8. The next question then is of the quantum of allowances up to which the allowances are to be treated as exempt and whether the exemption can be granted in the absence of the evidences of actual expenditure. This question has already been addressed to in the case of Madanlal Mohan lal Narangv. Asstt. CIT referred to and extracted in the case of Capt. K.P. Singh v. CIT and vice versa by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal. In the said case, the Tribunal has concluded as follow :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">. . . it is not open to the revenue to call for the details of expenses actually incurred unless the specific allowances are disproportionately high compared to the salary received by him or unreasonable with reference to the nature of the duties performed by the assessee. It is, however, not the case of the revenue that the allowance granted to the assessee was unreasonable or excessive having regard to the salary of the assessee or the legitimate minimum requirement for the purpose for which the allowances were granted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the present case also, it is not the revenues case that the allowances received by the assessee are excessive or unreasonable vis-a-vis the salary of the assessee or the purposes for which the same are granted. No material has been brought before us to indicate that the allowances are excessive or unreasonable. However, on the lines of the view that we have decided in the case of Capt. K.P. Singh (supra), we think it fit and proper to restrict the exemption to the rate of daily allowance fixed by the Government of India, so far as foreign visits are concerned. These daily allowance rate have been set out earlier in this order while quoting extracts from our order in the case of Capt. K.P. Singh (supra). We direct the assessing officer to accordingly grant exemption under section 10(14)(i) to the allowances, by adopting daily rates so fixed by the Government of India as the maximum permissible rate eligible for exemption under section 10(14)(1) without productions of evidence of actual expenditure, out of the consolidated flying allowances received by the assessee. In case, however, the allowance actually received by the assessee for a particular day is less than the daily allowance fixed by the Government of India, the exemption will be restricted to the actual allowance received by the assessee. In order that the above directions can be given effect by the assessing officer, the assessee shall provide for the details of stay abroad in connection with the performance of duties of his office, and compute the exempt portion of daily allowance at the rates specified in the Government circular referred to above. Upon furnishing of these details by the assessee, the assessing officer shall grant exemption under section 10(14)(i) in respect of the allowances in the terms indicated above. We now come to the quantum of allowance to be treated as exempt under section 10(14)(i) in respect of allowances granted to the assessee to meet ordinary daily charges during the period he is away from his base station but is in India. In the case of Capt. K.P. Singh (supra) a commercial pilot working for Air India Limited, we have held that having regard to high prices of meals and other incidental expenses at the places the airline crew members are required to stay in, a sum of Rs. 600 per day, or the actual allowance - whichever is less, to be allowed exemption under section 10(14)(1). We see no reasons to take any other view of the matter in the present case. Accordingly, we direct the assessing officer to accordingly grant exemption under section 10(14)(1) to the allowances, up to an amount of Rs. 600 per day without productions of evidence of actual expenditure, out of the total flying allowances received by the assessee for a day. As for the absence from normal place of duty for less than one day but more than 12 hours, the limit of exemption under section 10(14)(1), in accordance with the Government of India rules, will be the same. If this period is 6 hours or less, no portion of the amount can be taken as exempt. Where however, such period is less than 12 hours but 6 hours or more, the exemption will be confined to 70 per cent of the limit i.e., Rs. 420. In case, however, the allowance actually received by the assessee for a particular day of stay in India, outside the place of posting, is less than the amounts so specified above, the exemption will be restricted to the amount of actual allowance received. in order that the above directions can be given effect by the assessing officer, the assessee shall provide for and substantiate the details of stay in India outside the place of posting, in connection with the performance of duties of his office and compute the exempt portion of daily allowance at the rate of Rs. 600 per day as discussed above. In case, however, the visit to place outside the place of duty is for less than one day. Upon furnishing of these details by the assessee, the assessing officer shall grant exemption under section 10(14)(i) in respect of the allowances in the terms indicated above.<p style="text-align: justify;">9. For the reasons set out above, while we reject the contention of the revenue so far as the issue of grant of exemption to impugned allowances is concerned, and we uphold the contentions of the assessee in the terms indicated above. The matter will, however, go back to the file of the assessing officer for the limited purposes of quantification of relief in terms of our observations in the foregoing paragraphs.<p style="text-align: justify;">10. The only other issue left is revenues grievance against Commissioner (Appeal)s direction to the effect that interest under section 234A is to be charged only for the period for which the assessee was permitted to file the income-tax returns i.e., for two years. This issue is also covered in favour of the assessee by a series of orders of various Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal, copies of which were filed before us at pages 4 to 23 of the paper book. In these decisions, namely in the cases of Capt. EB Karadia, Ms. Priti Pithawala v. ITO (2003) 129 Taxman 79 (Mum) Nupur Rohinda, F.S. Vajifdar, Ms. Sidha Salian and Capt. A.K. Munial, the Tribunal has consistently taken the view that the matter is required to be restored to the file of the assessing officer for fresh computation of interest chargeable under section 234A of the Act only for the period for which it was possible for the assessee to file the income-tax return and in the light of Tribunal in the case of Ms. Priti Pithawala v. ITO (2003) 129 Taxman (Mag.) 79. We see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by the Co-ordinate Benches. The Commissioner (Appeals) has only restored to the file of the assessing officer for re-computation of interest under section 234A in terms of our above observations. We, therefore, confirm the action of the Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard as well, and decline to interfere on this count as well.<p style="text-align: justify;">11. In the result, while the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[2006]9SOT322(NULL)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Capt. H.R. Vinayak',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '367002'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

LAW: section 10(14)(i, section 144, section 10(14)(ii, section 234, section 234A, section 234(1)(b, section 234A, section 234A, section 10(14)(i, section 10(14)(i, section 10(14)(i, section 143(1)(a, section 10(14)(ii, section 10(14)(ii, section 10(14)(ii, section 10(14)(i, section 10(14)(i, section 264, section 264, section 10(14)(i, section 264, section 10(14)(i, section 10(14)(i, section 10(14)(i, section 264, section 10(14)(ii, section 10(14)(ii, section 10(14)(i, section 10(14)(ii, section 264, section 10(14)(ii, section 10(14)(ii, section 10(14)(i, section 10(14)(i, section 10(14)(i, section 10(14)(i, section 10(14)(i, section 10(14)(ii, section 264, section 10(14)(ii, section 10(14)(ii, section 10(14)(i, section 10(14)(ii, section 17, Rule 2BB, section 14, section 10, section 10, section 17(2, section 10(14)(ii, section 10(14)(i, section 17(2, section 10(14)(ii, section 10(14)(i, section 264, section 10(14)(ii, section 10(14)(ii, section 10(14)(ii, section 10(14)(i, section 10(14)(ii, section 10(14)(i, section 10(14)(ii, section 10(14)(i, section 10(14)(ii, section 10(14)(i).7, the Income Tax Act, section 1922 Act, Income Tax Act, section 297(2)(k, section 10(14)(i, section 10(14)(i, section 10(14)(i, section 10(14)(i, section 10(14)(i, section 10(14)(i, section 10(14)(i, section 10(14)(i, section 10(14)(ii, section 264, section 10(14)(ii, section 10(14)(ii, section 10(14)(ii, section 10(14)(i, section 10(14)(ii, section 10(14)(i, section 10(14)(i, section 10(14)(i, section 10(14)(i, section 10(14)(i, section 234A, section 234A of the Act, section 234A

PERSON: Gupta, Priti, V.K. Verma, Harminder, V.K. Verma, Bench, K.P. Singh, V.K. Verma v. Asstt, Harminder Singh v. Income-tax Officer, V.K. Verma v. ITO, U.A. Joglekar, Shailaja Ramamurthy, Neo Poly Pack Pvt, Notification Nos, Harminder Singh, Harminder Singh, Harminder Singhs, Harminder Singhs, Harminder Singh, Bench, V.K. Verma, Bench, Harminder Singh, V.K. Verma, V.K. Vermas, Harminder Singh, Vermas, Bench, Harminder Singhs, V.K. Verma, Harminder Singh, Bench, Madanlal Mohanlal Narang, Madanlal Mohanlal Narang v. Assn, Tejaji Frasaram Kharwalla v., Lordships, Tejaji Frasaram Kharwalla, Bench, above.30, Rs, Harminder Singhs, K.P. Singh v. Asstt, Madanlal Mohan, Narangv, K.P. Singh v. CIT, Bench, K.P. Singh, K.P. Singh, K.P. Singh, Rs, Benches of, EB Karadia, Priti Pithawala, Mum, Nupur Rohinda, F.S. Vajifdar, Sidha Salian, A.K. Munial, Priti, Taxman, Mag, Benches

ORG: Indian Airlines Ltd., the Income-Tax Act, Indian Airlines, S.0.143(E, the Commissioner (Appeals, S.0.143(E, the Commissioner (Appeals, Pithawala v. ITO, ITA No, the Income-Tax Act, Income-Tax (Appeals, Income-Tax (Appeals, Income-Tax (Appeals, Income-Tax (Appeals, Tribunal, Asstt, CIT, Tribunal, Tribunal, CIT, inter alia, Air India Limited, ITD, the Commissioner (Appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals, the Delhi Bench, Tribunal, ITA No, The Commissioner (Appeals, the Income-Tax Act, the Income-Tax Act, the Income-Tax Act, the Commissioner (Appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals, The Commissioner (Appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals, Income-Tax, inter alia, Indian Airlines, the Income-Tax Act, The Commissioner (Appeals, Indian Airlines, Indian Airlines, Appellate, Union of India, Honble Supreme Court, the Honble Supreme Court, Berger Paints India Limited, the Honble Delhi High Court, CWT v. RKKR Industries Private Limited 198, CTR, CIT, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, the Administrative Commissioners, the Tribunal in Capt, Tribunal, Harminder Singhs, Tribunal, Board, the Commissioner (Appeals, inter alia, Commissioner (Appeals, Neeta Kulkarni, CIT, XXVII/ITO, AR, the CIT (Appeals, AR, Indian Airlines, AR, CBDT, AR, the Commissioner (Appeals, the Tribunal in Capt, Tribunal, the Administrative Commission, Extent, State, continental, Remote Locality Allowance, Tribunal, the Commissioner (Appeals, Tribunal, Corporation of India, CIT, Tribunal, the Commissioner (Appeals, the Indian Income-Tax Act, Honble Bombay High Courts, the Honble Supreme Court, CIT, the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Income-Tax Act, the Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, Government, Government, Government, Learned Departmental Representative, Departmental Representative, Tribunal, the Government of India, Government, the Government of India, the Government of India, Government, the Government of India, The Commissioner (Appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals, Administrative, CIT, Asstt, CIT, Tribunal, Tribunal, the Government of India, the Government of India, the Government of India, Government, Air India Limited, the Government of India, Tribunal, ITO, Tribunal, Tribunal, Pithawala v. ITO, the Commissioner (Appeals

DATE: 1961, 1990-91, S.O. 143(E, previous year, 63 82, two years, the assessment year 1997-98, daily, 78, 1992, 5876, previous year, 75 per day, 30-5-2003, the assessment year 1994-95, 1989, years 1995-96, 1996-97, 1992, the year, previous year, 1993-94, previous year, 1,000 per month, June, the rest of, nine months, the assessment year 1993-94, the assessment year 1997-98, 11(3)/96/2001-02, 1107, S.O. 143(E, a previous year, daily, daily, daily, daily, daily, Rule 2BB(1)(a, 1,300 per month, S.O. 143(E, 180 days, 8 days, 2 1 st April, 2006, 1005, 1922, 1955, the assessment year 1955-56, 1922, 1922, 1961, daily, daily, daily, daily, daily, daily, daily, a particular day, daily, daily, daily, a particular day, daily, 600 per day, daily, daily, daily, a particular day, daily, daily, a day, less than one day, a particular day, daily, 600 per day, less than one day, two years, 2003, 2003, 79

MONEY: 50 per cent, 50 per cent, 40, 50 per cent, 50 per cent, 50 per cent, 50 per cent, 60 per cent, 50 per cent, 60 per cent, 60 per cent, 70 per cent, 50 per cent, 50 per cent, 1922 Act, 1922 Act and 1961 Act, $ 75AustriaUS $, $ 51CanadaUS $, 54ChainaUS, 75Hong, $ 75EthiopiaUS $, 50IndonesiaUS, 75KenyaUS, $ 50KoreaUS $, 70KuwaitUS, 75These, 10 per cent, 75, 75, between US $ 50 to US $ 75 per day, minus 10 per cent, 50 per cent, 70 per cent

CARDINAL: 50,000, 21, 21, 21, one, 12-3-2003, 234(1, 234A(3, 50,000, 24-8-2001, 2, 30-6-1997, 3,82,184, 3,82,184, 3,82,184, 62, 144(E, 21, 1, 3,000, 30,000, 36,000, 3,000, 32,97,850, 3,000, 2BB, 50,000, 50,000, 600, One, 2, 21, 50,000....6, 24, 50,000, 14-3-2002, 50,000, 16, 2001]249ITR219(SC, one, 2004]266ITR99(SC, 2000]245ITR492(Delhi, one, 21, 1, 30,000, 3,000, 36,000, 30,000, 3,000, 1,000, 3 plus Rs, 3,000, 9, 30,000, 144(E, 21, 1, 1, 144(E, 22-8-2001, 19-12-2001, 28, 5, 30-3-1990, 10, 14, 2, 2BB, 1, 14, one, 3,000, one, 3,000, 2BB(1)(b)-of, 3, one, 2BB(2)(2, two, one, 2BB(1)(a, 50,000, 50,000, 50,000, one, 101, 6, 1-4-1955, 1948]16ITR260(Bom, 1968]67ITR95(SC, 1-4-1955, 1, 28-3-1995, five, 600, 600, two, 600, 50,000, 144(E, 4, 1,000, 144(E, 600, 600, 420, 4 to 23, 129, 129

GPE: Mumbai, Mumbai, Delhi, Mumbai, assessee, India, India, India, US, India, India, New Delhi, India, India, India, India, XXVII, Mumbai, Mumbai, India, India, India, India, India, Mumbai, London, Mumbai, India, States, Mumbai, New Delhi, New Delhi, New Delhi, New Delhi, New Delhi, New Delhi, New Delhi, India, US, US, India, India, India, India, India, India, India, India, India, India

EVENT: SO 487(E, US Dollars, SO 487(E, SO 487(E, Edition - Page 1.130It

LOC: Harminder Singhs, Nicobar Island, Nicobar Island

QUANTITY: 20-2-2002

NORP: ITAT, Indian, allowance4.Any, Indian

TIME: overnight, overnight, hourly, more than 12 hours, 6 hours, less than 12 hours, 6 hours

ORDINAL: first

FAC: Madanlal Mohanlal Narang