<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1992 (5) TMI 67 - ITAT DELHI-D</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64484</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld the disallowance of business promotion expenses under section 37(2A) as they were categorized as entertainment expenses, not falling under section 37(3A). Regarding the conveyance allowance disallowance under section 37(3A) and (3B), the tribunal partially allowed the appeal, directing further verification by the Assessing Officer due to insufficient information on the types of employees receiving the allowance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 May 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Feb 2011 11:22:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=102925" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (5) TMI 67 - ITAT DELHI-D</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64484</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld the disallowance of business promotion expenses under section 37(2A) as they were categorized as entertainment expenses, not falling under section 37(3A). Regarding the conveyance allowance disallowance under section 37(3A) and (3B), the tribunal partially allowed the appeal, directing further verification by the Assessing Officer due to insufficient information on the types of employees receiving the allowance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 May 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64484</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>