<?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>1958 (10) TMI 40 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169646</link>
    <description>A transfer of funds to a partner&#039;s daughter-in-law and grandchildren was treated as a completed and legally valid gift where the surrounding writings, acceptance by the donees, separate accounts, and the firm&#039;s conduct showed a binding arrangement; physical delivery was not essential on these facts, and the interest paid on the amounts was deductible. Remuneration paid to two unrelated outsiders engaged to manage and correspond for the partnership business was also deductible because the services were genuine, commercially necessary, and incurred to earn income rather than as a mere appropriation of profits. Both deductions were upheld on the facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 04 Oct 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2015 10:56:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=383288" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1958 (10) TMI 40 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169646</link>
      <description>A transfer of funds to a partner&#039;s daughter-in-law and grandchildren was treated as a completed and legally valid gift where the surrounding writings, acceptance by the donees, separate accounts, and the firm&#039;s conduct showed a binding arrangement; physical delivery was not essential on these facts, and the interest paid on the amounts was deductible. Remuneration paid to two unrelated outsiders engaged to manage and correspond for the partnership business was also deductible because the services were genuine, commercially necessary, and incurred to earn income rather than as a mere appropriation of profits. Both deductions were upheld on the facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 04 Oct 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169646</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>