<?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>2016 (10) TMI 1416 - ITAT AMRITSAR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469194</link>
    <description>Where an assessee has sufficient interest-free funds such as share capital, reserves and surplus, interest disallowance on a car loan is not warranted merely because an investment or advance exists, and the disallowance was deleted. An ad hoc 10% disallowance of magazine and journal was unsustainable because no material showed the expenditure was excessive or unreasonable, so that disallowance was also deleted. The gratuity addition could not stand because the liability related to an earlier year and no fresh provision or profit and loss debit was made in the year under consideration; the deletion was upheld. The assessee obtained partial relief and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed on the gratuity issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2026 17:15:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=906209" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 1416 - ITAT AMRITSAR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469194</link>
      <description>Where an assessee has sufficient interest-free funds such as share capital, reserves and surplus, interest disallowance on a car loan is not warranted merely because an investment or advance exists, and the disallowance was deleted. An ad hoc 10% disallowance of magazine and journal was unsustainable because no material showed the expenditure was excessive or unreasonable, so that disallowance was also deleted. The gratuity addition could not stand because the liability related to an earlier year and no fresh provision or profit and loss debit was made in the year under consideration; the deletion was upheld. The assessee obtained partial relief and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed on the gratuity issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469194</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>