<?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 (4) TMI 104 - ITAT MADRAS-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69405</link>
    <description>The appeal before ITAT MADRAS-A concerned the computation of income for the assessment year 1984-85. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee regarding expenditure for Yamaha Generators&#039; demonstration, excluding it from section 37(3A) as educational rather than general publicity. Expenses for foreign buyers&#039; visit were not considered entertainment, dismissing Revenue&#039;s appeal. The claim for investment allowance under section 32A(2) for processed sea foods was allowed based on consistent precedent. The assessee&#039;s cross objection was deemed not maintainable. The appeal was partly allowed for the assessee and dismissed for the Revenue and cross objection.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2011 15:53:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=107775" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (4) TMI 104 - ITAT MADRAS-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69405</link>
      <description>The appeal before ITAT MADRAS-A concerned the computation of income for the assessment year 1984-85. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee regarding expenditure for Yamaha Generators&#039; demonstration, excluding it from section 37(3A) as educational rather than general publicity. Expenses for foreign buyers&#039; visit were not considered entertainment, dismissing Revenue&#039;s appeal. The claim for investment allowance under section 32A(2) for processed sea foods was allowed based on consistent precedent. The assessee&#039;s cross objection was deemed not maintainable. The appeal was partly allowed for the assessee and dismissed for the Revenue and cross objection.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69405</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>