<?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>2018 (5) TMI 1929 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283859</link>
    <description>Disallowance of doctors&#039; honorarium, travel and hospitality, books, exhibition sponsorship and related promotional expenses for assessment year 2011-12 was held unsustainable where the assessee substantiated that the were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes and the assessment was not based on proper verification of the accounts or the specific nature of the expenditure. The medical regulations relied on by the Revenue were not applied as suggested to the controversy, and CBDT Circular No. 05/2012 on freebies to medical practitioners was treated as prospective and not applicable to the relevant year. The addition was therefore deleted in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Oct 2019 20:52:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=591040" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 1929 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283859</link>
      <description>Disallowance of doctors&#039; honorarium, travel and hospitality, books, exhibition sponsorship and related promotional expenses for assessment year 2011-12 was held unsustainable where the assessee substantiated that the were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes and the assessment was not based on proper verification of the accounts or the specific nature of the expenditure. The medical regulations relied on by the Revenue were not applied as suggested to the controversy, and CBDT Circular No. 05/2012 on freebies to medical practitioners was treated as prospective and not applicable to the relevant year. The addition was therefore deleted in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283859</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>