<?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>1995 (9) TMI 113 - ITAT DELHI-E</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64987</link>
    <description>Hospitality expenditure on an opening ceremony, including dinner, hotel stay and gifts to stockists, was treated as entertainment expenditure under Explanation 2 to section 37(2A), with 25% excluded from disallowance as relatable to employees. Depreciation on vehicles leased out before year-end was allowed because the lease transactions were completed, possession had passed, rentals were received and the Revenue failed to show non-use for business. A bona fide changed method of accounting for lottery tickets despatched before year-end was accepted because it was a recognised method that better reflected true income and was not shown to be legally defective or revenue-suppressive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Feb 2011 15:08:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=103427" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (9) TMI 113 - ITAT DELHI-E</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64987</link>
      <description>Hospitality expenditure on an opening ceremony, including dinner, hotel stay and gifts to stockists, was treated as entertainment expenditure under Explanation 2 to section 37(2A), with 25% excluded from disallowance as relatable to employees. Depreciation on vehicles leased out before year-end was allowed because the lease transactions were completed, possession had passed, rentals were received and the Revenue failed to show non-use for business. A bona fide changed method of accounting for lottery tickets despatched before year-end was accepted because it was a recognised method that better reflected true income and was not shown to be legally defective or revenue-suppressive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64987</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>