<?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>2025 (12) TMI 426 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782886</link>
    <description>HC held multiple issues in favour of the assessee. Disallowance under Section 40A(5) was rejected, upholding the assessee&#039;s claim. Expenditure on air-conditioning, coolers, calculators and fans used in research and development was allowed as deductible. Extra shift allowance on new plant and machinery was also allowed to the assessee. On valuation of closing stock, excise duty was held not includible, again favouring the assessee. Regarding weighted deduction under Section 35B(1)(b)(iv) for commission to a foreign agent who had further appointed an Indian agent, HC found the factual matrix incomplete and remanded the matter to the Assessing Authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with applicable SC jurisprudence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2025 08:12:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=869322" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (12) TMI 426 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782886</link>
      <description>HC held multiple issues in favour of the assessee. Disallowance under Section 40A(5) was rejected, upholding the assessee&#039;s claim. Expenditure on air-conditioning, coolers, calculators and fans used in research and development was allowed as deductible. Extra shift allowance on new plant and machinery was also allowed to the assessee. On valuation of closing stock, excise duty was held not includible, again favouring the assessee. Regarding weighted deduction under Section 35B(1)(b)(iv) for commission to a foreign agent who had further appointed an Indian agent, HC found the factual matrix incomplete and remanded the matter to the Assessing Authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with applicable SC jurisprudence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782886</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>