https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10699 The High Court held that expenditure on car repairs and insurance, falling under section 31 of the Income-tax Act, was distinct from maintenance expenses for motor cars under section 37(3B). The Court emphasized that the non obstante clause in section 37(3A) did not override provisions related to expenditure allowances under sections 30 to 36 of the Act. The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, distinguishing between allowable expenditures under sections 30 to 36 and those covered by section 37(3B), with no costs awarded. en-us Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10699 The High Court held that expenditure on car repairs and insurance, falling under section 31 of the Income-tax Act, was distinct from maintenance expenses for motor cars under section 37(3B). The Court emphasized that the non obstante clause in section 37(3A) did not override provisions related to expenditure allowances under sections 30 to 36 of the Act. The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, distinguishing between allowable expenditures under sections 30 to 36 and those covered by section 37(3B), with no costs awarded. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10699