https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59060 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the applicability of Section 69D to hundi loans, stating that the instrument in question was a bill of exchange, not a hundi. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 80,000 was deemed inappropriate. The Tribunal confirmed several disallowances, such as hotel expenses and expenses related to shooting and set erections. However, the Tribunal allowed the claim for publicity expenses, citing a previous decision and directing the ITO to allow the expenditure. Overall, the appeal was partly allowed with a mixed outcome for the assessee. en-us Fri, 08 Jan 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Dec 2010 17:17:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59060 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the applicability of Section 69D to hundi loans, stating that the instrument in question was a bill of exchange, not a hundi. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 80,000 was deemed inappropriate. The Tribunal confirmed several disallowances, such as hotel expenses and expenses related to shooting and set erections. However, the Tribunal allowed the claim for publicity expenses, citing a previous decision and directing the ITO to allow the expenditure. Overall, the appeal was partly allowed with a mixed outcome for the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 08 Jan 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59060