<?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>1999 (2) TMI 102 - ITAT DELHI-D</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64527</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled against the assessee regarding the investment allowance for the hotel business, disallowing the claim as hotels were not considered industrial undertakings eligible for investment allowance. However, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the commission paid to travel agents, excluding it from the disallowance calculation under section 37(3A) as it was deemed a trading expense rather than a business promotion expense.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Feb 2011 13:40:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=102968" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (2) TMI 102 - ITAT DELHI-D</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64527</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled against the assessee regarding the investment allowance for the hotel business, disallowing the claim as hotels were not considered industrial undertakings eligible for investment allowance. However, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the commission paid to travel agents, excluding it from the disallowance calculation under section 37(3A) as it was deemed a trading expense rather than a business promotion expense.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64527</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>