https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69367 The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision to allow the claims for medical reimbursement and personal accident insurance premium, citing precedents from the Madras High Court and the Delhi High Court. However, the Tribunal reversed the CIT (A)'s decision on the investment allowance under Section 32A, restoring the ITO's disallowance. The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal affirming the CIT (A)'s decision on the medical reimbursement and insurance premium claims but siding with the ITO on the investment allowance issue. en-us Mon, 31 Oct 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Apr 2011 14:17:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69367 The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision to allow the claims for medical reimbursement and personal accident insurance premium, citing precedents from the Madras High Court and the Delhi High Court. However, the Tribunal reversed the CIT (A)'s decision on the investment allowance under Section 32A, restoring the ITO's disallowance. The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal affirming the CIT (A)'s decision on the medical reimbursement and insurance premium claims but siding with the ITO on the investment allowance issue. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 31 Oct 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69367