<?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>2026 (7) TMI 969 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795083</link>
    <description>Estimated stock statements furnished to banks cannot alone establish closing stock for tax purposes where the books are not defective, the valuation method is consistently followed, and differences are reconciled. Related-party expenditure disallowance requires proof that payment was made to a specified related party and was excessive or unreasonable; interest on unpaid purchase price did not meet those conditions. Keyman Insurance expenditure is allowable where the policy benefits the assessee company rather than individual directors. The article states that the disputed additions were deleted on concurrent findings, with no substantial question of law arising.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 09:07:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=911962" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 969 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795083</link>
      <description>Estimated stock statements furnished to banks cannot alone establish closing stock for tax purposes where the books are not defective, the valuation method is consistently followed, and differences are reconciled. Related-party expenditure disallowance requires proof that payment was made to a specified related party and was excessive or unreasonable; interest on unpaid purchase price did not meet those conditions. Keyman Insurance expenditure is allowable where the policy benefits the assessee company rather than individual directors. The article states that the disputed additions were deleted on concurrent findings, with no substantial question of law arising.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795083</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>