09-12-2011, 11:56 PM
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, san" id="quote">quote<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by perfectionist</i>
<br />Dear student_of_law,
Please shed some light on this query
Does Clause 139 (b) of Part II of Second Schedule also require employer to ask for "medical or hospital bills equivalent to exempt 10% medical allowance" from employee and then certify and attest the medical or hospital bills?
Your opinion shall be worth a lot.
Regards.
perfectionist
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Not at all. I will reframe your question as whether employee is bound to furnish bills of actual expenses. Again the answer is no. As allowance is exempt to the extent of 10% irrespective of actual expenses, that may be lower or higher.
Secondly, if the allowance is equivalent to actual expenses then it will more appropriately amount to reimbursement of medical facility rather than allowance.
I would like to mention that earlier there was also para ( c ) of Clause 139 that says that expenditure incurred to the extent of 10% of basic are exempt. After clause (c ) there was Proviso that required submission of bills. Clause (c ) has been omitted. However, in some books the Proviso, is still there. Either it is mistake of book compilers or FBR, that proviso is superfluous, don't get confused by it.
Only condition to avail this exemption of medical allowance is that the Employer should not be required to reimburse medical expenses or hospitalization under the terms and service of employment
<br />Dear student_of_law,
Please shed some light on this query
Does Clause 139 (b) of Part II of Second Schedule also require employer to ask for "medical or hospital bills equivalent to exempt 10% medical allowance" from employee and then certify and attest the medical or hospital bills?
Your opinion shall be worth a lot.
Regards.
perfectionist
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Not at all. I will reframe your question as whether employee is bound to furnish bills of actual expenses. Again the answer is no. As allowance is exempt to the extent of 10% irrespective of actual expenses, that may be lower or higher.
Secondly, if the allowance is equivalent to actual expenses then it will more appropriately amount to reimbursement of medical facility rather than allowance.
I would like to mention that earlier there was also para ( c ) of Clause 139 that says that expenditure incurred to the extent of 10% of basic are exempt. After clause (c ) there was Proviso that required submission of bills. Clause (c ) has been omitted. However, in some books the Proviso, is still there. Either it is mistake of book compilers or FBR, that proviso is superfluous, don't get confused by it.
Only condition to avail this exemption of medical allowance is that the Employer should not be required to reimburse medical expenses or hospitalization under the terms and service of employment
