<?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>2010 (8) TMI 1022 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182190</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 10,00,000 for the Keyman Insurance Policy premium, considering it as a revenue expenditure. However, the disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000 for the sleeping partner and Rs. 2,27,328 for vehicle and telephone expenses was upheld due to lack of evidence showing exclusive business purposes, resulting in a mixed outcome for the parties involved.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 May 2016 15:13:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=426665" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (8) TMI 1022 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182190</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 10,00,000 for the Keyman Insurance Policy premium, considering it as a revenue expenditure. However, the disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000 for the sleeping partner and Rs. 2,27,328 for vehicle and telephone expenses was upheld due to lack of evidence showing exclusive business purposes, resulting in a mixed outcome for the parties involved.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182190</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>