<?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>2002 (11) TMI 818 - ITAT GAUHATI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461872</link>
    <description>Where audited books are accepted and no specific defect or contrary material is shown, business expenditure cannot be disallowed merely on a subjective view of reasonableness or an assumed link between cost and output. Rent paid for office premises was accepted as business expenditure because it was incurred for business premises and had already been taxed in the recipient&#039;s hands, so the addition was deleted. Cultivation expenses were also upheld because the accounts were audited, unrejected, and the revenue identified no particular inadmissible item or basis to replace commercial judgment with its own view; the disallowance was therefore unjustified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 May 2025 12:53:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=819541" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (11) TMI 818 - ITAT GAUHATI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461872</link>
      <description>Where audited books are accepted and no specific defect or contrary material is shown, business expenditure cannot be disallowed merely on a subjective view of reasonableness or an assumed link between cost and output. Rent paid for office premises was accepted as business expenditure because it was incurred for business premises and had already been taxed in the recipient&#039;s hands, so the addition was deleted. Cultivation expenses were also upheld because the accounts were audited, unrejected, and the revenue identified no particular inadmissible item or basis to replace commercial judgment with its own view; the disallowance was therefore unjustified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461872</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>