<?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>1990 (6) TMI 113 - ITAT INDORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66858</link>
    <description>Incentive bonus and additional conveyance allowance received by a LIC Development Officer were treated as salary income because the employer-linked payments fell within the binding judicial view applied in the commentary. Once the receipts were characterised as salary, deductions allowed on the assumption of business income could not stand. The revisionary orders were also supported on the basis that the assessments had been completed without proper enquiry into the service conditions and the true nature of the payments, making them erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. The assessee&#039;s challenge therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jun 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2011 17:28:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=105293" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (6) TMI 113 - ITAT INDORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66858</link>
      <description>Incentive bonus and additional conveyance allowance received by a LIC Development Officer were treated as salary income because the employer-linked payments fell within the binding judicial view applied in the commentary. Once the receipts were characterised as salary, deductions allowed on the assumption of business income could not stand. The revisionary orders were also supported on the basis that the assessments had been completed without proper enquiry into the service conditions and the true nature of the payments, making them erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. The assessee&#039;s challenge therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jun 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66858</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>