Approvals under s.153D found mechanical and invalid; s.153A/s.153D assessments quashed; s.68 additions deleted where books rejected and s.144 best-jud...
HC dismissed the appeals. The court held that payments characterized as a licence fee for use of goodwill and a name were consideration for exploitation of goodwill, not a revenue-sharing arrangement; linking the fee to a percentage of the practice's billing constituted a measurement mechanism, not a profit-splitting scheme, and did not contravene Bar Council rules. Reliance on a medical-regulation precedent was rejected as inapposite, the prohibition thereon being regulatory and specific to the medical field. The deletion of an ad hoc 5% disallowance on travelling and entertainment expenses was upheld as correctly set aside by the appellate authorities. No substantial question of law arises.
HC dismissed the appeals. The court held that payments characterized as a licence fee for use of goodwill and a name were consideration for exploitation of goodwill, not a revenue-sharing arrangement; linking the fee to a percentage of the practice's billing constituted a measurement mechanism, not a profit-splitting scheme, and did not contravene Bar Council rules. Reliance on a medical-regulation precedent was rejected as inapposite, the prohibition thereon being regulatory and specific to the medical field. The deletion of an ad hoc 5% disallowance on travelling and entertainment expenses was upheld as correctly set aside by the appellate authorities. No substantial question of law arises.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
