<?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>1998 (4) TMI 105 - GUJARAT High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16472</link>
    <description>Reimbursement of medical and telephone expenses to managing directors constituted &quot;benefit&quot; under s. 40(c)(i) read with s. 40A(5), requiring inclusion in the disallowance; the Tribunal&#039;s contrary view was erroneous and the assessee&#039;s claim failed. Personal accident insurance premia paid on policies taken out by the company were not shown to be the directors&#039; obligation or a perquisite to them; the Tribunal correctly allowed the expenditure and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed. Fees paid for a feasibility report for a new mini steel plant, being a project distinct from the existing business, were capital in nature; the Tribunal erred and the Revenue succeeded. RCC roads were &quot;buildings&quot;: depreciation was allowable under s. 32, but development rebate under s. 33 was impermissible; relief was split. The s. 80-I claim was decided on an erroneous premise; the negative answer left the matter open for fresh Tribunal adjudication under s. 80-I read with Schedule VI.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2025 10:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=55472" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (4) TMI 105 - GUJARAT High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16472</link>
      <description>Reimbursement of medical and telephone expenses to managing directors constituted &quot;benefit&quot; under s. 40(c)(i) read with s. 40A(5), requiring inclusion in the disallowance; the Tribunal&#039;s contrary view was erroneous and the assessee&#039;s claim failed. Personal accident insurance premia paid on policies taken out by the company were not shown to be the directors&#039; obligation or a perquisite to them; the Tribunal correctly allowed the expenditure and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed. Fees paid for a feasibility report for a new mini steel plant, being a project distinct from the existing business, were capital in nature; the Tribunal erred and the Revenue succeeded. RCC roads were &quot;buildings&quot;: depreciation was allowable under s. 32, but development rebate under s. 33 was impermissible; relief was split. The s. 80-I claim was decided on an erroneous premise; the negative answer left the matter open for fresh Tribunal adjudication under s. 80-I read with Schedule VI.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16472</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>