https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23873 The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee on all issues considered in the case. Specifically, the court held that disallowance under section 40(a)(v)/40A(5) regarding rent should be based on actual expenditure, not a formula. It also determined that reimbursement of medical expenses and club bills should not be disallowed. Additionally, legal expenses for transferring the registered office were allowed as revenue expenditure, and provision for gratuity estimated on an actuarial basis was deemed allowable. Finally, the court rejected the invocation of section 52(2) for computing capital gains without proof of understatement, favoring the assessee. en-us Tue, 25 Apr 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Apr 2015 13:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23873 The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee on all issues considered in the case. Specifically, the court held that disallowance under section 40(a)(v)/40A(5) regarding rent should be based on actual expenditure, not a formula. It also determined that reimbursement of medical expenses and club bills should not be disallowed. Additionally, legal expenses for transferring the registered office were allowed as revenue expenditure, and provision for gratuity estimated on an actuarial basis was deemed allowable. Finally, the court rejected the invocation of section 52(2) for computing capital gains without proof of understatement, favoring the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 25 Apr 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23873