<?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 (11) TMI 162 - RAJASTHAN High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13552</link>
    <description>Sponsorship of a polo tournament was treated as an advertising expense because the trophy was awarded in the assessee&#039;s trade name and had substantial publicity value for the hotel business; the expenditure was therefore held to be incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes and was deductible. Depreciation on imported and Indian motor cars was also sustained at the rates allowed by the Tribunal, even though the assessee was not in the business of running cars on hire, because the issue had already been concluded in the assessee&#039;s own earlier case and no interference was warranted. The Revenue&#039;s challenge failed on both counts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Feb 2024 17:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=52561" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (11) TMI 162 - RAJASTHAN High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13552</link>
      <description>Sponsorship of a polo tournament was treated as an advertising expense because the trophy was awarded in the assessee&#039;s trade name and had substantial publicity value for the hotel business; the expenditure was therefore held to be incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes and was deductible. Depreciation on imported and Indian motor cars was also sustained at the rates allowed by the Tribunal, even though the assessee was not in the business of running cars on hire, because the issue had already been concluded in the assessee&#039;s own earlier case and no interference was warranted. The Revenue&#039;s challenge failed on both counts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13552</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>