https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69954 The appeal was dismissed, affirming the disallowance of the surtax liability and the travelling allowance under Rule 6D as interpreted by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal upheld the decision, agreeing with the revenue's interpretation that hotel expenses incurred at the destination are covered by the restrictions of Section 37(3) and Rule 6D. The judges emphasized the need to differentiate between daily allowances for hotel stays and other legitimate business expenses but ultimately concurred with the final decision. en-us Wed, 11 Jan 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:51:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69954 The appeal was dismissed, affirming the disallowance of the surtax liability and the travelling allowance under Rule 6D as interpreted by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal upheld the decision, agreeing with the revenue's interpretation that hotel expenses incurred at the destination are covered by the restrictions of Section 37(3) and Rule 6D. The judges emphasized the need to differentiate between daily allowances for hotel stays and other legitimate business expenses but ultimately concurred with the final decision. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 11 Jan 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69954