<?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>2009 (2) TMI 252 - ITAT JAIPUR-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68306</link>
    <description>Eligibility for deduction under section 80-IA/80-IB must be tested with reference to the statutory conditions prevailing in the relevant previous year, so small-scale industry status could not be denied merely because of the position in the initial year; the deduction was upheld. Trading additions based on lower yield, stock valuation, and shortage could not stand where the books were regularly maintained and no specific defects were identified, so the additions were deleted. Interest paid to specified persons was not shown to be excessive or unreasonable in the absence of market-rate evidence, so the disallowance failed. However, disallowance of telephone, vehicle, depreciation, and office es for alleged personal use was sustained because business-only use was not established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Oct 2023 11:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=106705" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 252 - ITAT JAIPUR-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68306</link>
      <description>Eligibility for deduction under section 80-IA/80-IB must be tested with reference to the statutory conditions prevailing in the relevant previous year, so small-scale industry status could not be denied merely because of the position in the initial year; the deduction was upheld. Trading additions based on lower yield, stock valuation, and shortage could not stand where the books were regularly maintained and no specific defects were identified, so the additions were deleted. Interest paid to specified persons was not shown to be excessive or unreasonable in the absence of market-rate evidence, so the disallowance failed. However, disallowance of telephone, vehicle, depreciation, and office es for alleged personal use was sustained because business-only use was not established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68306</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>