<?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>1994 (11) TMI 179 - ITAT DELHI-D</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64788</link>
    <description>Bad debt deduction for administrative charges recoverable from a sister concern was denied because the assessee did not prove that recovery had become irrecoverable in the relevant year; financial difficulty alone was insufficient. Disallowance under section 37(2A) for business promotion, travelling and hotel expenses was upheld only in part, as the record showed mainly director-related, entertainment-like expenditure, while the hotel expense component was not established as inadmissible and the employee-related portion alone warranted restriction. Disallowance under rule 6D failed because the travelling expenditure remained within the prescribed statutory ceiling, so no addition could survive on that ground.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Feb 2011 18:35:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=103229" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (11) TMI 179 - ITAT DELHI-D</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64788</link>
      <description>Bad debt deduction for administrative charges recoverable from a sister concern was denied because the assessee did not prove that recovery had become irrecoverable in the relevant year; financial difficulty alone was insufficient. Disallowance under section 37(2A) for business promotion, travelling and hotel expenses was upheld only in part, as the record showed mainly director-related, entertainment-like expenditure, while the hotel expense component was not established as inadmissible and the employee-related portion alone warranted restriction. Disallowance under rule 6D failed because the travelling expenditure remained within the prescribed statutory ceiling, so no addition could survive on that ground.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64788</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>