<?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>2002 (11) TMI 15 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11337</link>
    <description>Deduction claims for travelling expenses and kuri canvassing commission require credible supporting evidence. Travelling expenditure was only partly accepted because valid documents did not substantiate the full claim. Commission paid to a director&#039;s son was disallowed where he could not identify subscribers allegedly canvassed, leaving the claim unproved. Inadequate substantiation and adverse factual findings supported the disallowances, with no basis for interference in appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 20:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=50354" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (11) TMI 15 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11337</link>
      <description>Deduction claims for travelling expenses and kuri canvassing commission require credible supporting evidence. Travelling expenditure was only partly accepted because valid documents did not substantiate the full claim. Commission paid to a director&#039;s son was disallowed where he could not identify subscribers allegedly canvassed, leaving the claim unproved. Inadequate substantiation and adverse factual findings supported the disallowances, with no basis for interference in appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11337</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>