<?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>2012 (10) TMI 214 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217263</link>
    <description>LPG bottling was treated as manufacture or production because the process of emptying, cleaning, vacuuming, filling, leak testing, quality control and sealing created a commercially distinct and marketable product, supporting deduction under sections 80HH, 80-I and 80-IA. Excise and customs duty actually paid remained deductible under section 43B even though included in closing inventory. Expenditure on the 20-point programme was allowed as business expenditure incurred on commercial expediency and governmental direction. By contrast, the claimed staff-related entertainment expense was not disturbed for lack of reliable evidence, and dividend payment was held to be an appropriation of income, not deductible business expenditure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Apr 2016 12:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=190640" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (10) TMI 214 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217263</link>
      <description>LPG bottling was treated as manufacture or production because the process of emptying, cleaning, vacuuming, filling, leak testing, quality control and sealing created a commercially distinct and marketable product, supporting deduction under sections 80HH, 80-I and 80-IA. Excise and customs duty actually paid remained deductible under section 43B even though included in closing inventory. Expenditure on the 20-point programme was allowed as business expenditure incurred on commercial expediency and governmental direction. By contrast, the claimed staff-related entertainment expense was not disturbed for lack of reliable evidence, and dividend payment was held to be an appropriation of income, not deductible business expenditure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217263</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>