https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175847 The Court dismissed all appeals by the Revenue, affirming the decisions on the admissibility of deductions under section 35(1)(iv). It upheld the deduction for guarantee commission paid to directors' relatives, citing the precedent in CIT vs. Ayurvedic Sevashram (P) Ltd. The Court also confirmed the deduction for bank guarantee commission, emphasizing the established legal principle that such allowances are a question of law. Additionally, it supported the Tribunal's decision to allow deductions for machinery used in R&D, based on factual findings and the AO's inspection. en-us Mon, 05 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Dec 2023 14:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175847 The Court dismissed all appeals by the Revenue, affirming the decisions on the admissibility of deductions under section 35(1)(iv). It upheld the deduction for guarantee commission paid to directors' relatives, citing the precedent in CIT vs. Ayurvedic Sevashram (P) Ltd. The Court also confirmed the deduction for bank guarantee commission, emphasizing the established legal principle that such allowances are a question of law. Additionally, it supported the Tribunal's decision to allow deductions for machinery used in R&D, based on factual findings and the AO's inspection. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 05 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175847