https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14184 A special audit fee and expense determination under section 142(2D) was upheld because the Chief Commissioner examined the audit bill, considered the nature and volume of work done, and reduced the claim by disallowing 30% while allowing the balance. The record did not show arbitrariness or any compelling ground for interference under articles 226 and 227. Later agreement to pay the fee in instalments also supported the absence of further interference. The writ challenge failed and the order fixing the special audit fees and expenses remained undisturbed. en-us Wed, 10 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:45:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14184 A special audit fee and expense determination under section 142(2D) was upheld because the Chief Commissioner examined the audit bill, considered the nature and volume of work done, and reduced the claim by disallowing 30% while allowing the balance. The record did not show arbitrariness or any compelling ground for interference under articles 226 and 227. Later agreement to pay the fee in instalments also supported the absence of further interference. The writ challenge failed and the order fixing the special audit fees and expenses remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 10 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14184