<?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>1953 (8) TMI 20 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174532</link>
    <description>Bonus or commission paid to an employee, even if contractually enforceable, is treated as a special deduction issue under clause (x) of section 10(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 rather than the general business-expenditure provision in clause (xv). The reasonableness of such payment must be assessed by a combined consideration of the employee&#039;s pay and service conditions, the business profits, and the general practice in similar businesses; a fragmented reliance on only one factor is legally incorrect. The Tribunal&#039;s partial approach was therefore held to be a misdirection in law, and the matter required reconsideration on the correct statutory test.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 1953 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2015 16:13:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=400740" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1953 (8) TMI 20 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174532</link>
      <description>Bonus or commission paid to an employee, even if contractually enforceable, is treated as a special deduction issue under clause (x) of section 10(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 rather than the general business-expenditure provision in clause (xv). The reasonableness of such payment must be assessed by a combined consideration of the employee&#039;s pay and service conditions, the business profits, and the general practice in similar businesses; a fragmented reliance on only one factor is legally incorrect. The Tribunal&#039;s partial approach was therefore held to be a misdirection in law, and the matter required reconsideration on the correct statutory test.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 1953 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174532</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>