<?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>Depreciation disallowance and festival donations deleted, while fine-and-penalty expenditure under section 37(1) was remanded for verification.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98244</link>
    <description>Ad hoc disallowance of vehicle depreciation cannot stand without adverse material or a factual basis showing personal use or defective record-keeping; where the assessee asserted log books and audit controls and the Revenue produced no specific rebuttal, the disallowance was treated as arbitrary and deleted. Donations for festivities were held allowable where CBDT circulars covered such payments, and those circulars were binding on the Revenue, so the addition was deleted. For fine and penalty expenditure under section 37(1), the record lacked sufficient factual clarity, and the remand to the Assessing Officer for verification was upheld, leaving that issue open on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2026 08:27:10 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2026 08:27:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=893837" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Depreciation disallowance and festival donations deleted, while fine-and-penalty expenditure under section 37(1) was remanded for verification.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98244</link>
      <description>Ad hoc disallowance of vehicle depreciation cannot stand without adverse material or a factual basis showing personal use or defective record-keeping; where the assessee asserted log books and audit controls and the Revenue produced no specific rebuttal, the disallowance was treated as arbitrary and deleted. Donations for festivities were held allowable where CBDT circulars covered such payments, and those circulars were binding on the Revenue, so the addition was deleted. For fine and penalty expenditure under section 37(1), the record lacked sufficient factual clarity, and the remand to the Assessing Officer for verification was upheld, leaving that issue open on merits.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2026 08:27:10 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98244</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>