<?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>1992 (2) TMI 150 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67484</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, providing relief on issues related to suppression of production and sales, and disallowance of expenditure as entertainment expenses. The Tribunal concluded that there was no evidence of suppressed sales or production, thus no addition was warranted. Expenditure on gifts or presentations was allowed under section 37(1) as it was incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The issue of disallowance u/s 40A(9) was restored for fresh consideration by the AO, while the claim for relief on account of closing balance of excise duty paid was not considered as it was not pursued during the appeal hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Feb 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Mar 2011 17:53:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=105919" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (2) TMI 150 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67484</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, providing relief on issues related to suppression of production and sales, and disallowance of expenditure as entertainment expenses. The Tribunal concluded that there was no evidence of suppressed sales or production, thus no addition was warranted. Expenditure on gifts or presentations was allowed under section 37(1) as it was incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The issue of disallowance u/s 40A(9) was restored for fresh consideration by the AO, while the claim for relief on account of closing balance of excise duty paid was not considered as it was not pursued during the appeal hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Feb 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67484</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>