https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66388 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee on several issues. It allowed the deduction of Rs. 1,06,43,227 for market development expenses, recognizing them as revenue rather than capital. The write-off of Rs. 1 crore as a bad debt from Shaw Wallace was permitted, as was the exclusion of notional interest income. The write-off of Rs. 1,26,95,765 from Glen View was allowed under Section 36(1)(vii), and the unrealized benefit of Rs. 69,16,756 under the advance license scheme was also accepted. The Tribunal directed the exclusion of 90% of net interest for Section 80HHC deductions. However, disallowance of food, beverages, and transit house expenses was upheld. The appeal for 1996-97 was fully allowed, while the 1997-98 appeal was partly allowed. en-us Fri, 23 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Feb 2024 13:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66388 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee on several issues. It allowed the deduction of Rs. 1,06,43,227 for market development expenses, recognizing them as revenue rather than capital. The write-off of Rs. 1 crore as a bad debt from Shaw Wallace was permitted, as was the exclusion of notional interest income. The write-off of Rs. 1,26,95,765 from Glen View was allowed under Section 36(1)(vii), and the unrealized benefit of Rs. 69,16,756 under the advance license scheme was also accepted. The Tribunal directed the exclusion of 90% of net interest for Section 80HHC deductions. However, disallowance of food, beverages, and transit house expenses was upheld. The appeal for 1996-97 was fully allowed, while the 1997-98 appeal was partly allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 23 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66388