<?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>2006 (7) TMI 127 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9817</link>
    <description>Rule 6B of the Income-tax Rules applies to presentation articles only where they have advertisement value. Articles bearing a company&#039;s name and presented as gifts to dignitaries or business associates as a gesture of courtesy do not become advertising material merely because of that name. The relevant assessment requires consideration of the purpose of presentation, intended audience and surrounding context, including whether there was a clear intention to promote sales or advertise the business. On the stated facts, the expenditure was characterised as gift expenditure rather than advertisement expenditure; therefore, disallowance under rule 6B for articles exceeding the prescribed value limit was not justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2011 04:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=48839" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (7) TMI 127 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9817</link>
      <description>Rule 6B of the Income-tax Rules applies to presentation articles only where they have advertisement value. Articles bearing a company&#039;s name and presented as gifts to dignitaries or business associates as a gesture of courtesy do not become advertising material merely because of that name. The relevant assessment requires consideration of the purpose of presentation, intended audience and surrounding context, including whether there was a clear intention to promote sales or advertise the business. On the stated facts, the expenditure was characterised as gift expenditure rather than advertisement expenditure; therefore, disallowance under rule 6B for articles exceeding the prescribed value limit was not justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9817</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>