<?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>1991 (8) TMI 129 - ITAT BOMBAY-E</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59150</link>
    <description>The tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the decisions of the tax authorities regarding the disallowance of investment allowance on machineries and certain expenditures under section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The tribunal held that the investment allowance was not applicable as the equipment did not lead to the production of any tangible output, and the expenditures were disallowed under section 40(c) due to the amenity provided to a director-employee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Dec 2010 12:47:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=97604" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (8) TMI 129 - ITAT BOMBAY-E</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59150</link>
      <description>The tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the decisions of the tax authorities regarding the disallowance of investment allowance on machineries and certain expenditures under section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The tribunal held that the investment allowance was not applicable as the equipment did not lead to the production of any tangible output, and the expenditures were disallowed under section 40(c) due to the amenity provided to a director-employee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59150</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>