https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221069 The court ruled against the assessee in a case involving the interpretation of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It denied the deduction for hiring space on hoardings under section 37(3A) for the assessment year 1985-86, emphasizing that such expenses did not qualify as advertisement or publicity costs eligible for deduction under section 30. Additionally, the court held that excise duty is a direct cost of manufacture for the assessment year 1986-87, based on precedent and consistency in judicial decisions. The judgment underscored the importance of strict interpretation of tax laws and adherence to statutory provisions in determining deductions and costs related to business activities. en-us Mon, 28 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Feb 2013 08:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221069 The court ruled against the assessee in a case involving the interpretation of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It denied the deduction for hiring space on hoardings under section 37(3A) for the assessment year 1985-86, emphasizing that such expenses did not qualify as advertisement or publicity costs eligible for deduction under section 30. Additionally, the court held that excise duty is a direct cost of manufacture for the assessment year 1986-87, based on precedent and consistency in judicial decisions. The judgment underscored the importance of strict interpretation of tax laws and adherence to statutory provisions in determining deductions and costs related to business activities. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 28 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221069