<?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>2011 (5) TMI 98 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203740</link>
    <description>Disallowance of director remuneration under Section 40(C) of the Income-tax Act was examined for Assessment Year 1982-83, where payments exceeded the prescribed limit. The issue was treated as covered by an earlier decision involving the same legal question for another assessment year, and the court followed that view. The result was that the disallowance was not sustained, and the matter was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2011 08:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=177295" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (5) TMI 98 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203740</link>
      <description>Disallowance of director remuneration under Section 40(C) of the Income-tax Act was examined for Assessment Year 1982-83, where payments exceeded the prescribed limit. The issue was treated as covered by an earlier decision involving the same legal question for another assessment year, and the court followed that view. The result was that the disallowance was not sustained, and the matter was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203740</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>