<?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>1991 (4) TMI 182 - ITAT DELHI-D</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64713</link>
    <description>Deferred sales-tax liability covered by a State incentive scheme was treated as deemed paid under the relevant State provisions, and the Board circular accepted that such deeming fiction satisfies section 43B; the disallowance was therefore unsustainable. Retainership fee paid to an advocate for consultation on income-tax matters was held to fall outside section 80VV because it was not expenditure for representation in proceedings before the tax authorities, and the disallowance was not justified. Travelling expenses were also deleted because the Assessing Officer&#039;s rule 6D disallowance was computed without proper regard to the nature of the items and the persons to whom they related, leaving no sustainable addition on the facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Feb 2011 14:37:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=103154" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (4) TMI 182 - ITAT DELHI-D</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64713</link>
      <description>Deferred sales-tax liability covered by a State incentive scheme was treated as deemed paid under the relevant State provisions, and the Board circular accepted that such deeming fiction satisfies section 43B; the disallowance was therefore unsustainable. Retainership fee paid to an advocate for consultation on income-tax matters was held to fall outside section 80VV because it was not expenditure for representation in proceedings before the tax authorities, and the disallowance was not justified. Travelling expenses were also deleted because the Assessing Officer&#039;s rule 6D disallowance was computed without proper regard to the nature of the items and the persons to whom they related, leaving no sustainable addition on the facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64713</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>