https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202048 Education expenses for a trainee sent abroad were disallowed as business expenditure because no satisfactory evidence showed a regular appointment or a business nexus with the assessee's operations. The concurrent factual findings were that the spending was incurred because the trainee was the son of a director, not because of a demonstrated business requirement. Those findings were treated as pure questions of fact, and in the absence of perversity or legal error, no substantial question of law arose for interference under section 260A. The appeal accordingly failed in favour of the Revenue. en-us Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202048 Education expenses for a trainee sent abroad were disallowed as business expenditure because no satisfactory evidence showed a regular appointment or a business nexus with the assessee's operations. The concurrent factual findings were that the spending was incurred because the trainee was the son of a director, not because of a demonstrated business requirement. Those findings were treated as pure questions of fact, and in the absence of perversity or legal error, no substantial question of law arose for interference under section 260A. The appeal accordingly failed in favour of the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202048