https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329643 The ITAT Chennai ruled that there was no violation of Rule 46A by the CIT(A) in admitting additional evidence as obtaining information independently did not constitute additional evidence filed by the assessee. The disallowance of travelling expenses for foreign travel was overturned, emphasizing the necessity for professionals, like the neuro-physician in this case, to update their knowledge regardless of age. However, the disallowance of 25% depreciation on the motor car was upheld due to the assessee's own classification of personal usage. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's cross objection was partly allowed. en-us Wed, 13 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Jul 2016 11:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329643 The ITAT Chennai ruled that there was no violation of Rule 46A by the CIT(A) in admitting additional evidence as obtaining information independently did not constitute additional evidence filed by the assessee. The disallowance of travelling expenses for foreign travel was overturned, emphasizing the necessity for professionals, like the neuro-physician in this case, to update their knowledge regardless of age. However, the disallowance of 25% depreciation on the motor car was upheld due to the assessee's own classification of personal usage. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's cross objection was partly allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 13 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329643