<?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>1997 (8) TMI 54 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16988</link>
    <description>Rule 6D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 was construed broadly to cover hotel expenses incurred by a partner of a firm. The Delhi High Court held that the phrase &quot;an employee or any other person&quot; did not exclude a partner, so the ceiling under rule 6D applied to such expenses incurred in the course of the firm&#039;s business. On that construction, the disallowance of the hotel expenses was sustained, and the issue was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:58:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=55988" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (8) TMI 54 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16988</link>
      <description>Rule 6D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 was construed broadly to cover hotel expenses incurred by a partner of a firm. The Delhi High Court held that the phrase &quot;an employee or any other person&quot; did not exclude a partner, so the ceiling under rule 6D applied to such expenses incurred in the course of the firm&#039;s business. On that construction, the disallowance of the hotel expenses was sustained, and the issue was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16988</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>