https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189454 Disallowable expenditure under Rule 6D had to be computed with reference to individual tours, because the issue was covered by binding precedent; the question was therefore answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Investment allowance under section 32A was available on the value of plant and machinery leased by the assessee, because that issue was also covered by binding Supreme Court precedent; the question was likewise answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Court reiterated that a referred question governed by binding precedent must be answered in accordance with that precedent. en-us Mon, 28 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Jan 2017 14:26:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189454 Disallowable expenditure under Rule 6D had to be computed with reference to individual tours, because the issue was covered by binding precedent; the question was therefore answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Investment allowance under section 32A was available on the value of plant and machinery leased by the assessee, because that issue was also covered by binding Supreme Court precedent; the question was likewise answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Court reiterated that a referred question governed by binding precedent must be answered in accordance with that precedent. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 28 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189454