Proof of travel not required for claiming LTA: SC

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.993 OF 2005
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. ...APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
M/S LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. ...RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 992 OF 2005
O R D E R
A short question which arises for determination in these Civil Appeal(s) is –
whether the assessee(s) was under statutory obligation under Income Tax Act, 1961, and/or
the Rules to collect evidence to show that its employee(s) had actually utilized the amount(s)
paid towards Leave Travel Concession(s)/Conveyance Allowance?

It may be noted that the beneficiary of exemption under Section 10(5) is an
individual employee. There is no circular of Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) requiring the employer under Section 192 to collect and examine the supporting evidence to the Declaration to be submitted by an employee(s).
For the above reasons there is no merit in the Civil Appeals and the same are
dismissed with no order as to costs.
....................J.
[ S.H. KAPADIA ]
New Delhi, ....................J
January 21, 2009 [ AFTAB ALAM ]

beyond the reference

If the arbitrator decides a dispute which is beyond the scope of his reference or beyond the subject-matter of the reference or he makes the award disregarding the terms of reference or the arbitration agreement or terms of the contract, it would be a jurisdictional error beyond the scope of reference; he cannot clothe himself to decide conclusively that dispute as it is an error of jurisdiction which requires to be ultimately decided by the Court.

Beyond the scope of reference

If the arbitrator decides a dispute which is beyond the scope of his reference or beyond the subject matter of the reference or he makes the award disregarding the terms of reference or the arbitration agreement or terms of the contract, it would jurisdictional error beyond the scope of reference, he cannot clothe himself to decide conclusively that dispute as it is an error of jurisdiction which requires to be ultimately decided by the court

territorial jurisdiction issue

Both the appellant Board, having its base and operation at Jaipur and the respondent Company, having its registered office and manufacturing unit at Calcutta entered into an agreement having following clause:
"30.....The contract shall for all purposes be construed according to the laws of India and subject to jurisdiction of only at Jaipur in Rajasthan Courts only..........."
Somehow the disputes arose between the parties. The respondent company approcached the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta. Somehow matter came before Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hon'ble Court referring its earlier judgments confirm the view expressed in Hanil Era Textiles Ltd. v. Puromatic Filters (P) Ltd. [(2004) 4 SCC 671], it was held by this Court that where two or more courts have jurisdiction under the Code, it is permissible to have an agreement between the parties restricting the place of suing to any one of them and if such restriction is placed in the agreement, the same cannot be said to be contrary to public policy and does not contravene Section 28 of the Contract Act. It was however, made clear that such restriction cannot be made and the parties cannot by agreement confer jurisdiction on a court which otherwise it does not possess under the Code.