https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221429 The Appellate Tribunal partially allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. It held that Rule 8D of I.T. Rules was not applicable for the assessment year in question, directing the Assessing Officer to re-decide the disallowance issue. The Tribunal also allowed the Director's commission and disallowed the payment to Canco Advertising Pvt. Ltd. for lack of evidence of services rendered. The levy of interest under section 234B was considered consequential without specific adjudication. en-us Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:47:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221429 The Appellate Tribunal partially allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. It held that Rule 8D of I.T. Rules was not applicable for the assessment year in question, directing the Assessing Officer to re-decide the disallowance issue. The Tribunal also allowed the Director's commission and disallowed the payment to Canco Advertising Pvt. Ltd. for lack of evidence of services rendered. The levy of interest under section 234B was considered consequential without specific adjudication. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221429