<?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>2003 (6) TMI 194 - ITAT DELHI-F</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65351</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed both appeals, affirming the CIT(A)&#039;s orders on the issues related to the deduction for additional conveyance allowance, expenses against incentive bonus, and depreciation on the car used for earning the incentive bonus. The Tribunal found that the necessary evidence was not provided by the assessee to justify the claimed amounts, leading to the rejection of the appeals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Feb 2011 11:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=103791" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (6) TMI 194 - ITAT DELHI-F</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65351</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed both appeals, affirming the CIT(A)&#039;s orders on the issues related to the deduction for additional conveyance allowance, expenses against incentive bonus, and depreciation on the car used for earning the incentive bonus. The Tribunal found that the necessary evidence was not provided by the assessee to justify the claimed amounts, leading to the rejection of the appeals.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65351</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>