<?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>Medical reimbursement under service terms and book rejection without specific defects were both found unsustainable.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101307</link>
    <description>Medical reimbursement and incidental travel expenses of the Chairman were held allowable as business expenditure because the board-approved service terms specifically permitted reimbursement and the business nexus was accepted. The Tribunal also set aside rejection of the Sahibabad unit&#039;s books and the estimated profit addition, finding that the assessment rested only on that unit&#039;s loss, without any specific defect in the accounts, under-reporting of receipts, or proved inflation of expenditure. The assessee&#039;s explanation that the Jaipur and Sahibabad units functioned in a combined manner was not properly considered.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2026 08:07:08 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2026 08:07:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=909504" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Medical reimbursement under service terms and book rejection without specific defects were both found unsustainable.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101307</link>
      <description>Medical reimbursement and incidental travel expenses of the Chairman were held allowable as business expenditure because the board-approved service terms specifically permitted reimbursement and the business nexus was accepted. The Tribunal also set aside rejection of the Sahibabad unit&#039;s books and the estimated profit addition, finding that the assessment rested only on that unit&#039;s loss, without any specific defect in the accounts, under-reporting of receipts, or proved inflation of expenditure. The assessee&#039;s explanation that the Jaipur and Sahibabad units functioned in a combined manner was not properly considered.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2026 08:07:08 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101307</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>