https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34602 The court ruled that consultancy charges paid to Pradeep Pant were not covered under section 35D of the Income-tax Act as the assessee was not operating an industrial undertaking. Additionally, the court allowed a deduction for the increased liability due to foreign exchange rate fluctuations under section 43A, considering it as a business expense. The decision was supported by factual findings and legal precedents, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as no substantial legal question arose. en-us Mon, 25 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34602 The court ruled that consultancy charges paid to Pradeep Pant were not covered under section 35D of the Income-tax Act as the assessee was not operating an industrial undertaking. Additionally, the court allowed a deduction for the increased liability due to foreign exchange rate fluctuations under section 43A, considering it as a business expense. The decision was supported by factual findings and legal precedents, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as no substantial legal question arose. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 25 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34602