https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59420 The Tribunal ruled against the assessee on both issues. For the disallowance of Rs. 3,67,818 under s. 37(4) r/w s. 37(5) for Ahmedabad bungalow expenses, the Tribunal followed previous orders and decided in favor of the Revenue. Regarding the Rs. 22,34,456 deduction under s. 80HHC, the Tribunal concluded that deductions are permissible only when positive profits from exports are demonstrated, and export incentives alone do not suffice. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the Revenue's position. en-us Fri, 23 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Jul 2024 13:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59420 The Tribunal ruled against the assessee on both issues. For the disallowance of Rs. 3,67,818 under s. 37(4) r/w s. 37(5) for Ahmedabad bungalow expenses, the Tribunal followed previous orders and decided in favor of the Revenue. Regarding the Rs. 22,34,456 deduction under s. 80HHC, the Tribunal concluded that deductions are permissible only when positive profits from exports are demonstrated, and export incentives alone do not suffice. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the Revenue's position. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 23 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59420