<?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>1978 (10) TMI 58 - ITAT BOMBAY-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58422</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the decisions of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) on all three issues. The deduction of bad debts due from Shri K.P. Bhatt was allowed as a loss incidental to the assessee&#039;s business, considering the business relationship and futility of legal action against an insolvent debtor. The weighted deduction under section 35B for commission paid to Shri D.C. Joshi and related expenditures was permitted based on Shri Joshi&#039;s role in enhancing the export business. Additionally, the expenditure for providing ordinary hospitality to customers was treated as ordinary hospitality, not entertainment, leading to the dismissal of the departmental appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 21 Oct 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Dec 2010 18:47:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=96880" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (10) TMI 58 - ITAT BOMBAY-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58422</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the decisions of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) on all three issues. The deduction of bad debts due from Shri K.P. Bhatt was allowed as a loss incidental to the assessee&#039;s business, considering the business relationship and futility of legal action against an insolvent debtor. The weighted deduction under section 35B for commission paid to Shri D.C. Joshi and related expenditures was permitted based on Shri Joshi&#039;s role in enhancing the export business. Additionally, the expenditure for providing ordinary hospitality to customers was treated as ordinary hospitality, not entertainment, leading to the dismissal of the departmental appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 21 Oct 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58422</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>