https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64747 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee-company on various issues. It held that the income of a proprietary concern owned by a shareholder should not be included in the company's hands without sufficient evidence of being a benami. The company was entitled to investment allowance for its manufacturing activities. Travelling expenses were partially allowed based on evidence, and pre-commencement expenditure was to be capitalized. Payment to consultants was to be capitalized as part of machinery cost. The company qualified for deduction under Section 80-I. Entertainment expenses were upheld under Section 37(3A), and interest under Section 216 was to be recalculated. en-us Thu, 21 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:07:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64747 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee-company on various issues. It held that the income of a proprietary concern owned by a shareholder should not be included in the company's hands without sufficient evidence of being a benami. The company was entitled to investment allowance for its manufacturing activities. Travelling expenses were partially allowed based on evidence, and pre-commencement expenditure was to be capitalized. Payment to consultants was to be capitalized as part of machinery cost. The company qualified for deduction under Section 80-I. Entertainment expenses were upheld under Section 37(3A), and interest under Section 216 was to be recalculated. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 21 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64747