← All Phrases

“Section 10(14)”

Section References (mined)Section 10Section 10(14)25 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 10(14) is Escorts Ltd. v. UOI (199 ITR 43), cited in 267 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 10(14)

Escorts Ltd. v. UOI

199 ITR 43 · 1993 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

A statute should not be construed to permit double deduction for the same expenditure unless specifically provided by law.

Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT

27 ITR 34 · 1955 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The Supreme Court established the foundational test for distinguishing between capital and revenue expenditure, holding that the aim and object of the expenditure and whether it brings into existence an asset or an advantage of an enduring nature determines its character, irrespective of the payment method. An advantage lasting five years or more can be considered enduring.

East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. v. CIT

42 ITR 49 · 1961 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Rental income from immovable property owned by an assessee must be assessed under the head 'Income from House Property' (Section 22), even if the assessee is engaged in the business of real estate or property development and leasing. This emphasizes the mandatory classification of income under its specific statutory head.

CIT v. ITI Ltd.

313 ITR 1 · 2009 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

An employer is not statutorily obligated to collect evidence from employees regarding the actual utilization of amounts paid towards leave travel concession or conveyance allowance, unless specific requirements are mandated by law or a CBDT circular.

CIT v. D.P. Sandhu & Bros.

273 ITR 1 · 2005 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Surrender of tenancy rights is a transfer of a capital asset, and the consideration received is a capital receipt subject to capital gains tax. If the cost of acquisition cannot be determined, the transfer of such an asset was not taxable under capital gains prior to the amendment of Section 55(2) in 1995.

CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy

32 ITR 466 · 1957 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Income is considered agricultural income, exempt under Section 10(1), only if the land undergoes a measure of cultivation involving basic primary operations prior to germination and subsequent post-germination activities requiring human skill and labour.

CIT v. Market Committee, Pipli

330 ITR 16 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

A charitable trust can claim depreciation on assets when computing the income applied for charitable or religious purposes under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, for assessment years prior to the introduction of Section 11(6). The restriction on claiming depreciation, as introduced by Section 11(6), is prospective from AY 2015-16.

United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT

32 ITR 688 · 1957 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The heads of income specified in the Income Tax Act are mutually exclusive, requiring any item of income to be charged and computed solely under its specific statutory head, with Section 56 (Income from Other Sources) serving as a residuary provision.

Judgments citing Section 10(14)

Dattatray Vithoba Sawant, Kalyan vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-42(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6081/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 10(14)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 3Section 80CSection 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 6081/Mum/2025 Assessment Year

Hemant Dahyalal Bhatt, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2012–13 to 2016–17 are allowed, and appeals for assessment years 2017–18 and 2018–19 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7913/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 144Section 153ASection 24

disallowances sustained by the learned CIT(A), which inter alia relate to denial of exemption in respect of medical allowance claimed under section 10(14)(ii), addition of dividend income and capital gains by treating the same as taxable income, disallowance of housing loan interest, addition of interest income ... Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of INR 15,000 on account of medical allowance, which is specifically exempt from tax under Section 10(14) (ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition

Hemant Dahyalal Bhatt, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2012–13 to 2016–17 are allowed, and appeals for assessment years 2017–18 and 2018–19 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7912/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 144Section 153ASection 24

disallowances sustained by the learned CIT(A), which inter alia relate to denial of exemption in respect of medical allowance claimed under section 10(14)(ii), addition of dividend income and capital gains by treating the same as taxable income, disallowance of housing loan interest, addition of interest income ... Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of INR 15,000 on account of medical allowance, which is specifically exempt from tax under Section 10(14) (ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition

Hemant Dahyalal Bhatt, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2012–13 to 2016–17 are allowed, and appeals for assessment years 2017–18 and 2018–19 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7911/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 144Section 153ASection 24

disallowances sustained by the learned CIT(A), which inter alia relate to denial of exemption in respect of medical allowance claimed under section 10(14)(ii), addition of dividend income and capital gains by treating the same as taxable income, disallowance of housing loan interest, addition of interest income ... Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of INR 15,000 on account of medical allowance, which is specifically exempt from tax under Section 10(14) (ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition

Hemant Dahyalal Bhatt, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2012–13 to 2016–17 are allowed, and appeals for assessment years 2017–18 and 2018–19 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7910/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 144Section 153ASection 24

disallowances sustained by the learned CIT(A), which inter alia relate to denial of exemption in respect of medical allowance claimed under section 10(14)(ii), addition of dividend income and capital gains by treating the same as taxable income, disallowance of housing loan interest, addition of interest income ... Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of INR 15,000 on account of medical allowance, which is specifically exempt from tax under Section 10(14) (ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition

Hemant Dahyalal Bhatt, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2012–13 to 2016–17 are allowed, and appeals for assessment years 2017–18 and 2018–19 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7909/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 144Section 153ASection 24

disallowances sustained by the learned CIT(A), which inter alia relate to denial of exemption in respect of medical allowance claimed under section 10(14)(ii), addition of dividend income and capital gains by treating the same as taxable income, disallowance of housing loan interest, addition of interest income ... Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of INR 15,000 on account of medical allowance, which is specifically exempt from tax under Section 10(14) (ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition

Hemant Dahyalal Bhatt, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2012–13 to 2016–17 are allowed, and appeals for assessment years 2017–18 and 2018–19 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7908/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 144Section 153ASection 24

disallowances sustained by the learned CIT(A), which inter alia relate to denial of exemption in respect of medical allowance claimed under section 10(14)(ii), addition of dividend income and capital gains by treating the same as taxable income, disallowance of housing loan interest, addition of interest income ... Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of INR 15,000 on account of medical allowance, which is specifically exempt from tax under Section 10(14) (ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition

Hemant Dahyalal Bhatt, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2012–13 to 2016–17 are allowed, and appeals for assessment years 2017–18 and 2018–19 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7907/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 144Section 153ASection 24

disallowances sustained by the learned CIT(A), which inter alia relate to denial of exemption in respect of medical allowance claimed under section 10(14)(ii), addition of dividend income and capital gains by treating the same as taxable income, disallowance of housing loan interest, addition of interest income ... Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of INR 15,000 on account of medical allowance, which is specifically exempt from tax under Section 10(14) (ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition

Pritam Shrikant Parvatkar, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-12, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2526/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2525 & 2526/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pritam Shrikant Parvatkar, Vs. Dcit, Circle-12, Pune. 19, Jaydeo Nagar, Sinhgad Road, Pune- 411030. Pan : Abqpp3304F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Shri Vishvjeet Nagda Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 08.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2526/Pun/2025 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi

Section 10Section 10(14)Section 147

exemption of Rs. 85,300 for Conveyance Exemption, LTA non-Taxable and Medical Non- taxable under the provisions of Section 10(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, aggregate allowances of Rs. 3,89,296 for the year under appeal after applying the provisions of the Income

Pritam Shrikant Parvatkar, Pune vs. DCIT, Cir-12, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2525/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2525 & 2526/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pritam Shrikant Parvatkar, Vs. Dcit, Circle-12, Pune. 19, Jaydeo Nagar, Sinhgad Road, Pune- 411030. Pan : Abqpp3304F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Shri Vishvjeet Nagda Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 08.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2526/Pun/2025 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi

Section 10Section 10(14)Section 147

exemption of Rs. 85,300 for Conveyance Exemption, LTA non-Taxable and Medical Non- taxable under the provisions of Section 10(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, aggregate allowances of Rs. 3,89,296 for the year under appeal after applying the provisions of the Income

Shashikala Vinaykumar, Mangaluru vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1 (1) and Tps Mangalore, Mangaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Smt. Vanaja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT-DR

Section 10(14)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 271(1)Section 57

overlooked the uniform allowances and medical allowances. He went on disallowing such expenses without considering the facts. Uniform allowances are allowable under section 10(14) (i) and medical allowances are exempted up to Rs. 15,000/-. Therefore, the tax and the interest levied on such expenses have to be deleted

Shashikala Vinaykumar, Mangaluru vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1 (1) and Tps Mangalore, Mangaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Smt. Vanaja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT-DR

Section 10(14)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 271(1)Section 57

overlooked the uniform allowances and medical allowances. He went on disallowing such expenses without considering the facts. Uniform allowances are allowable under section 10(14) (i) and medical allowances are exempted up to Rs. 15,000/-. Therefore, the tax and the interest levied on such expenses have to be deleted

Sharad Sinha, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4325/MUM/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt.Renu Jauhrisharad Sinha Vs. Acit, Circle 17(1) 2502, Shobha Marvella, Kautilya Bhavan, Green Glen Layout, Mumbai-400005. Bengaluru-560103. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Bgtps9872A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kapil SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary- Sr. AR

Section 10Section 10(14)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 68

allowing the exemption under Section 10(13A) amounting to Rs. 3,12,714/- towards House Rent Allowance, and the exemption under Section 10(14) amounting to Rs. 19,200/- towards Transport Allowance received by the appellant and Profession Tax of Rs.2,400/- deducted by the employer

Virender Malik, Sagore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 11(4), Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1810/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 80CSection 80T

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ”एस एम सी” न्यायपीठ पुणेमें। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFOREDR.DIPAK P

Virender Malik, Sagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 11(4), Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1809/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 80CSection 80T

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ”एस एम सी” न्यायपीठ पुणेमें। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFOREDR.DIPAK P

Madhu Khatri, Singapore vs. DCIT Circle 3(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1032/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year :2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Naman Maloo, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep S, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 10Section 10(14)Section 143(1)Section 90

assessee has claimed exemption under section 10(13A) of the Act of Rs.7,41,983/- and conveyance allowance of Rs.19,200/- under section 10(14) of the Act. Form No.16 and Form 12BB was enclosed at Page Nos.63 to 74 for claiming exemption under section 10 ... regarding not allowing exemption under section 10(13A) of the Act of Rs.7,41,983/- and conveyance allowance amounting to Rs.19,200/- under section 10(14) of the Act and not granting FTC as claimed by the assessee of Rs.5,44,252/-. We noted from the Order of the authorities

Premjeet Singh, Dabha Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 5(3), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 521/NAG/2024[AY 2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 10Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(i)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 270A

filed on time. Subsequently, the assessee received notice under section 143(2) of the Act on account of allowances of expenses under section 10(14)(i) and 10(14)(ii) of the Act, and such allowance of expenses were reflected in the return of income filed by the assessee

Giju Varghese, Mysore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)& Tps, Mysuru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1117/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Soundararajan K. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Deepa Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., JCIT-DR

Section 10(10)Section 10(14)Section 144Section 148Section 24Section 80C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE “B” BENCH, BANGALORE Before Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri Soundararajan K

DCIT-8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Sapiens Technologies (1982) India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1361/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1361/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit-8(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Sapiens Room No. 673, 6Th Floor, Technologies (1982) India Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi Pvt. Ltd. Karve Marg, Mumbai- 22, New Pushpamilan, 67, 400020. Worli Hills, Mumbai- 400018. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci8674H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Vani Saxena Revenue By: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Nfac, Delhi Dated 24.02.2023 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Revenue Are As Under: - “(I) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Considering Daily Overseas Allowances Was Paid By The Company Being In The Nature Of Reimbursement Of Expenses Incurred By Employees On Their Business Trip To Overseas. (Ii) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Consider That The Allowance Are Perquisite Within The Meaning Of Section 17(2) Of The I. T. Act & Hence It Will Be Taxable In India & Assessee Has Failed To Deduct Taxes At Source As Required U/S 40(A)(Iii).”

For Appellant: Ms. Vani SaxenaFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 17(2)Section 40

being in the nature of reimbursement of expenses incurred by employees on their business trip to overseas jurisdiction, it will be exempt under section 10(14)(ii) of the Act. In view of this, there was no liability on the appellant to deduct tax at source in respect of overseas

Vodafone India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, in the terms aforesaid

ITA 6718/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 6718/Mum/2012 (िन.व. 2008-09) Vodafone India Ltd. (Formerly Known As ‘Vodafone Essar Limited’) Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan:Aaach-5332-B बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 7(3), ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai. अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By :Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate With S/Shri Vibhu Jain & A.K.Jawadwala ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By :Shri Anand Mohan, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate with S/Shri Vibhu Jain and A.K.JawadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 40Section 80I

that Rule 2BB(1)(a) refers to the allowances granted to meet the cost of travel on tour or on transfer. Referring to section 10(14)(i) of the Act the ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed that payment of such allowances is in any case exempt. The ld.Counsel